Perfect. I use the phrase "sort on" often and was thinking of suggesting that, but I was afraid it was just jargon in my line of work. On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 19:17 Silvan Mosberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd be in favor. We'd need another name, since the current closure > predicate is already standardized to `by:`. > > > Haskell uses "on" for sorting with a mapping. There are both > > sortOn :: Ord > <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.0.0/docs/Data-Ord.html#t:Ord> b > => (a -> b) -> [a] -> [a] > > and > > sortBy :: (a -> a -> Ordering > <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.0.0/docs/Data-Ord.html#t:Ordering>) > -> [a] -> [a] > > in Haskell. >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
