Things that may be removed

[KennyTM~]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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

What prevents a sort() function from a standard library with default 
parameters from being CTFE-ed?

A .sort property built into the language is convenient, but not 
necessary I think.