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
