http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8680
--- Comment #9 from Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> 2012-09-20 10:00:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > I suspect we don't need to offer the 'I don't care' option explicitly. People > may as well be specific. Could add a documentation note that the depth-first > options will generally be slightly cheaper than breadth-first. I was not trying to claim traversals that should be available, only emphasizing the ones I've used. > > Parent First: Give me everything in the Parent First, then you can traverse > > the > > children. Almost as you described, except it would be starting a breadth > > first > > from each child. > > There are two ways you could get this effect. You could do this: listdir was deprecated for a very good reason. Would you now kindly consider the steps to fold this into a Range. We can implement any traversal with shallow, why bother adding depth and breadth or anything else? I'm very glade you have brought up the naming and implementation issue as I am relying on a behavior which isn't defined, and now I can plan to correct this. But it would be nice if the standard library included the use case I would be using. > For the sorting case, I was merely suggesting that the sort could be put > in the user's control, so they can sort alphabetically or by timestamp or > however they want. With those examples I see this as a very useful addition. Just not supporting the traversal I use. > So the above options can be reversed in all possible permutations to give what > you want here. And that is even easier if the traversal is already a range. > So to conclude, I'd recommend making do with my second example above if it > fits > your needs - with obviously the sorting more customisable. But if you think > there's a strong case for the first example, then do it. Remember though that > anyone can get any of these results by writing their own recursive function > and > repeatedly calling 'shallow', so I wouldn't go too overboard with different > options. (Consider whether you even want the sorting callback, since again, > the > effect can be achieved by just writing it out.) This argument applies to so many languages that I hope you reconsider your position "it can be done with primitives already." Why did you use foreach? Do we really need the function we have goto. In the beginning I was confused with your issues, to clear up I just wanted to explain the traversal types I do use so whoever gets around to fixing this may consider including them. But the main issue of Breadth not being breadth needs resolved. I can fend for myself, just don't want to. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------