Menu
Search

Forums

Forum Index

February 06, 2014
Gravatar of Jesse PhillipsPosted by Jesse PhillipsReply
Jesse Phillips
Gravatar of Jesse Phillips


Reply
The documentation states:

"The two ranges are assumed to be sorted by less."

Would it make more sense for this function, and its siblings, to take a SortedRange instead. This would be a breaking change as it would require people to either sort or assumeSorted before calling.

But SortedRange was added for exactly this application (I believe).
February 06, 2014
Gravatar of Andrei AlexandrescuPosted by Andrei Alexandrescu
in reply to Jesse Phillips		Reply
Andrei Alexandrescu
Gravatar of Andrei Alexandrescu
Posted in reply to Jesse Phillips


Reply
On 2/6/14, 9:35 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> The documentation states:
>
> "The two ranges are assumed to be sorted by less."
>
> Would it make more sense for this function, and its siblings, to take a
> SortedRange instead. This would be a breaking change as it would require
> people to either sort or assumeSorted before calling.
>
> But SortedRange was added for exactly this application (I believe).

Yah, it's a historical order artifact.

Andrei