You'd have to implement the sorting algorithm by hand, right? You wouldn't be able to use the underlying JS engine.
I imagine that that would be a lot slower. Writing in interpreted script vs. executable code. But, computers are getting faster these days. Not mine, mind you. But some peoples'. If you gave it a name like "stable-sort" there would be no confusion, except for people who don't check the docs. What's really needed is for JS to allow developers the ability to specify the kind of sort. I think Java may have that level of specificity. On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 1:18:06 AM UTC-8, Jed Carty wrote: > > I have been thinking about making an explicitly stable sort operator for > tiddlywiki so this is easier. > > In general unstable sorts can be much faster than stable sorts so by > default some (or most?) browsers use unstable sorting algorithms like > quicksort. > > A stable sort keeps elements that have the same ranking in the sorting in > the order they were at the input. > > A stable sorting operator would allow you to do this in one filter, the > only problem is that it may be slower than the normal sort operator. Unless > you are doing thousands of these operations in a row that shouldn't matter. > > My biggest concern with making this is having multiple sort operators > might be confusing without good detailed documentation about what stable vs > unstable means. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/841a52e9-3b41-4236-a152-17ccbd3370f1%40googlegroups.com.
