Things that may be removed
Stewart Gordon
smjg_1998 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 22 14:54:06 PST 2008
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.245.1229956988.22690.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
<snip>
>> 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.
How does having built-in sort prevent anybody from implementing sort in a
library?
> 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?
I'm sure Walter can come up with a rationale for having sort built in.
But I still doubt there's any reason for keeping it as limited as it is.
Stewart.
--
My e-mail address is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies
on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list