Does sort have to be eager or would it be possible to have a lazy version? It's messy to always have to use array and leap in and out of lazy operations within a UFCS chain. Surely as many functions as possible should be optionally lazy.

On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 10:41:16 UTC, ixid wrote:
> Does sort have to be eager or would it be possible to have a lazy version? It's messy to always have to use array and leap in and out of lazy operations within a UFCS chain. Surely as many functions as possible should be optionally lazy.

Wouldn't that mean removing min or max lazily?

On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 10:41:16 UTC, ixid wrote:
> Does sort have to be eager or would it be possible to have a lazy version? It's messy to always have to use array and leap in and out of lazy operations within a UFCS chain. Surely as many functions as possible should be optionally lazy.

Are you the lazy sort? ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.

On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 10:41:16 UTC, ixid wrote:
> Does sort have to be eager or would it be possible to have a lazy version? It's messy to always have to use array and leap in and out of lazy operations within a UFCS chain. Surely as many functions as possible should be optionally lazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_queue

On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 11:08:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 10:41:16 UTC, ixid wrote:
>> Does sort have to be eager or would it be possible to have a lazy version? It's messy to always have to use array and leap in and out of lazy operations within a UFCS chain. Surely as many functions as possible should be optionally lazy.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_queue

Yes, I was reading about heapsort. I was only thinking about the usability POV (I mean isn't reduced pretty much an eager operation that accepts a lazy input? Why can't sort do that?) but it could also offer some performance improvement if you only use a part of the sorted array.

On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 12:23:52 UTC, ixid wrote:
> Yes, I was reading about heapsort. I was only thinking about the usability POV (I mean isn't reduced pretty much an eager operation that accepts a lazy input? Why can't sort do that?) but it could also offer some performance improvement if you only use a part of the sorted array.

I think there is something called "partial sort" in Phobos, but "lazy" sorting is the same as a priority queue.

You need to look at all elements before finding the largest one, that's why you cannot turn sort into a plain generator (or lazy range as some may call it).