Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> If another sort order is needed, then we will either have to audit
> existing string_list users to make sure that they don't rely on strcmp()
> ordering, or we will have to implement strcmp() ordering *plus* the new
> ordering.

What I was envisioning was to pass in an optional custom comparison
when you instantiate a string_list object.  Existing callers that
rely on (or can live with, because they do not care about the exact
order) the default order will continue to use the byte-value ordering,
so there is no need for auditing.  Only the new callers that want
different ordering would set custom comparison routine.

But now I wrote it down, I realize that there is no _harm_ in
documenting "we sort in byte-value order, so expect iterations on
sorted string list to give them in that order to you" at all.

So let's go with your documentation patch as-is.

> It's not that I'm unwilling to implement 2; it's just that I still don't
> see any advantage to doing so before there is a demonstrated need for it.

As I said, I have this suspicion that the lack of demonstrated need
is largely because the existing code that do _not_ use string-list
don't do so because the interface is limited, so the argument is
sort of self-fulfilling.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to