[Issue 15401] partialSort should accept two ranges

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15401

Infiltrator <lt.infiltrator at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lt.infiltrator at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Infiltrator <lt.infiltrator at gmail.com> ---
Once issue 15421 is fixed, this is a simple matter of
    topN(l, r);
    sort(l);

Which brings us to the question of: should partialSort(Range, index) be changed
to call partialSort(r[0..n], r[n..$]) to reduce duplication or is there a large
performance difference in the two topNs?

--