Re: master 4b79c80c999 1/2: New function 'sort-on'

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev> writes:

> The other alternative (suggested by Daniel) is to add a yet another
> optional argument - whether to do the schwartz transform - so it would
> be on the caller to determine whether the accessor is costly enough.

This would be my preferred solution, too

> This is not my first choice, but I'd still prefer it over having two
> different but very similar functions. sort-on is slower than it has to
> be, too.

It could be improved?  How?


BTW, I wonder how this addition fits into my original suggestion about
sort predicate construction.  I guess we would want to allow to choose
between using schwartz or not (at each level) in the specification -
which would mean that my approach would build a sort function, not a
sort predicate.  Which also might allow to build more efficient code.
Being able to choose a sort function at run-time is useless anyway.

Michael.