2017-11-07 9:23 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier < [email protected]>:
> I have other ideas yet. > > The selector undefinedFirst is good, but the implementation not so. > I don't like the UndefinedSortFunction: too specific, compose oddly... > > If we defined <=> in Boolean (orWhatEverTheLongSelectorYouPr > eferBecausePharoHasTheFreedomToHaveOwnTaste:) > in order to have true sorted first, then we can generalize. > > "sort by absolute value, but put the negative first" > numbers sorted: #negative sortedFirst, #abs > > sortedFirst in this case would be a synonym for ascending (or > asSortFunction). > Alternatively, if we don't want <=> in Boolean because it's not natural > (the fact that we need a synonym is a clue) > then we can have sortedFirst answering a specialized BooleanSortFunction. > I like this idea. And I think it is better to add threeWayCompare: to Boolean because it allows to avoid extra selector: #negative ascending, #abs #isNil descending, #name >From the other side it will force remembering convention for boolean order. So maybe it should be explicit: #negative trueFirst, #abs #isNil trueLast, #name
