[Haskell-cafe] Re: (flawed?) benchmark : sort
gtener at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 19:53:08 EDT 2008
In OCaml you have sort and fastsort - the latter doesn't have to be stable.
It currently is, because fastsort = sort.
I think it is a good thing to leave people an option, if there is something
important to choose.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM, <ajb at spamcop.net> wrote:
> G'day all.
> Adrian Hey wrote:
> >> This might be a reasonable thing to say about *sortBy*, but not sort
> >> as the ordering of equal elements should not be observable (for any
> >> correct instance of Ord). It should be impossible to implement a
> >> function which can discriminate between [a,a],[a,b],[b,a],[b,b] if
> >> compare a b = EQ.
> Nonsense. Consider a Schwartzian transform wrapper:
> data OrdWrap k v = OrdWrap k v
> instance (Ord k) => Ord (OrdWrap k v) where
> compare (OrdWrap k1 v1) (OrdWrap k2 v2) = OrdWrap k1 k2
> It would be incorrect (and not sane) for sort [a,b] to return [a,a] in
> this case, though a case could be made that either [a,b] or [b,a] make
> Quoting Jules Bean <jules at jellybean.co.uk>:
> > Stability is a nice property. I don't understand why you are arguing
> > against this so aggressiviely.
> Stability is an occasionally very useful property. However, if there
> is a tradeoff between stability and performance, I'd prefer it if the
> library didn't choose for me.
> Andrew Bromage
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe