A suggestion
Lex Spoon
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Mar 13 18:59:40 UTC 2002
"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> (what I need is lexicographic order, which this isn't, and
> what a sortblock must provide is a total order over the elements in
> the collection, which this doesn't)
Hmm, requiring a total ordering is a good excuse--I mean rationale!--for
using lexicographic order for #<. If you just want a comparison
operation, and don't care what it's exact meaning is, then it's best if
we supply a total ordering. This happens in practice -- you might want
to stick the items in a binary tree.
> If we are allowed to add arrays (and we are), why not compare them?
> And if we compare them, is lexicographic order the most suitable?
> (There are other orders which are also compatible with =, such as
> - first compare the lengths,
> - then compare the elements ONLY if the lengths are the same.
> This is almost always faster, and has some nice properties.
Gee, yet another way to compare collections. Note, though, that this is
not a total ordering, either -- arrays of different lengths will be ~=
but they will be neither #< nor #> .
-Lex
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|