On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jarrett Billingsley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM, bearophile <[email protected]> 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
