On 10/15/12 10:35 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2012 at 01:47:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It should probably explain the rationale behind returning SortedRange
so that it's much clearer as to why you'd want to use the return value
rather than the original (now sorted) range.
+1
As it stands it's not at all clear from the documentation what the
intention is, or how someone can go about sorting something without
mutating it.
Thanks for the responses.
Agreed. Part of the problem was that at the time I changed sort to
return a value (it used to return void), severe compiler bugs forced me
to take it out again for a while. So it's been "experimental" until it
just silently started working and I forgot about it; and you know how
documentation of experimental work goes...
Regarding sorted(), one possibility would be to define a lazy sorting
routine under that name or lazySort(). It would make for a better name
than heap(), which implements the desired functionality.
Andrei
