Bisection functions should take a comparator argument
Daniel Itaborai
(16 Mar 2021 01:16 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(16 Mar 2021 07:24 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(16 Mar 2021 07:52 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument Alex Shinn (16 Mar 2021 13:43 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(16 Mar 2021 14:42 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(20 Mar 2021 10:05 UTC)
|
Re: Bisection functions should take a comparator argument Alex Shinn 16 Mar 2021 13:42 UTC
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:52 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote: > > Am Di., 16. März 2021 um 08:24 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org>: >> >> They do — the ‘less?’ argument. These procedures can also be used with comparators in the SRFI 128 sense quite easily: just pass the comparator-ordering-predicate of the comparator as the ‘less?’ argument. > > > The general philosophy seems to have been lately not to use bare ordering predicates in public APIs but to always accept comparators. I think that only makes sense for those few APIs where either an ordering or hash could be applicable. Otherwise it's extra complexity and boilerplate to wrap a custom `less?' in a dummy comparator. -- Alex