Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:41:35 -0400, Frits van Bommel
<fvbom...@remwovexcapss.nl> wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billings...@gmail.com)'s
article
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
b) the features and functions that should be included.
I'd say NaNs and unordered comparisons. In other words, it should
support
the same semantics as float, double and real do.
opUnorderedCmp?
What's wrong with just returning some sentinel from opCmp? For
example, define
int.max as the sentinel for when comparing with nans involved, etc.
For opEquals,
we don't have a problem, just return false.
IIRC having an opCmp returning floats works, so you could return
float.nan.
(I've never used this, but I think it was mentioned in these groups)
It works if you want to just do x < y. However, try sorting an array of
structs that return float for opCmp, and you'll get an error. This is
because the compiler has special meaning for opCmp of a certain
signature, which goes into the TypeInfo. I submitted a bug for those
functions to be documented:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2482
Yet another reason to get rid of built-in .sort; a templated function would have
no problem with this :).
