Things that may be removed

[Bill Baxter]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
<jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley:
>>> I suppose you mean for normal arrays.  How about reverse as well?
>>
>> I'd like to see better and faster "reverse" and "sort", but I think they are useful. Why do you want to see them removed? I think built-in types may enjoy more methods, not less.
>
> So they can be replaced with library methods.  The built-in sort
> doesn't even allow you to sort on a predicate.  Even if we extend the
> built-in sort to support this, it'll never be as flexible as some
> people want it.  If a sort function can perform just as well or better
> than the built-in sort while being more flexible, what's the point of
> having the built-in sort?

One good thing about the built-in .sort and .reverse functions is that
you can be sure they'll work as CTFE.
A library sort function isn't so likely to.

--bb