On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Andy Fingerhut
wrote:
>
> Then my question is still: "Would it be good for Clojure to document and
> promise this comparison behavior?"
>
> If not for all cases, at least for equal-length vectors being compared
> lexicographically?
>
>
I frequently rely on Clojure
On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Alan Malloy wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:29:18 AM UTC-8, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
>
> > Clojure's sorted collections must be provided with a sorting function where
> > items "tie" if and only if th
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:29:18 AM UTC-8, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
>
> > Clojure's sorted collections must be provided with a sorting function
> where items "tie" if and only if they are equal.
> >
> > (sorted-set-by #(compare [(se
On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> Clojure's sorted collections must be provided with a sorting function where
> items "tie" if and only if they are equal.
>
> (sorted-set-by #(compare [(second %) %] [(second %2) %2]) [:a 1] [:b 1] [:c
> 1]))
Mark, I like the brevity of th
Thanks for the tip.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 13:13:09 UTC-5, puzzler wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:01 AM, JvJ >wrote:
>
>> Simple solution. It works! Thanks.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't work. It may print correctly now, but it won't actually
> behave the way you expect.
>
> Clojure's sort
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:01 AM, JvJ wrote:
> Simple solution. It works! Thanks.
>
No, it doesn't work. It may print correctly now, but it won't actually
behave the way you expect.
Clojure's sorted collections must be provided with a sorting function where
items "tie" if and only if they are
I would be surprised if you are still happy with that solution a few minutes
after doing some testing with it.
I've added some examples to ClojureDocs.org at the link below, with a suggested
better comparison function. Take a look and let me know if it seems clear:
http://clojuredocs.org/cloju
Simple solution. It works! Thanks.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 10:59:23 UTC-5, Bronsa wrote:
>
> what about using <= as sorting fuction?
>
> 2012/11/20 JvJ >
>
>> First of all: I don't EXACTLY mean duplicate elements. I just mean
>> duplicates in those parts of the elements which are compare
what about using <= as sorting fuction?
2012/11/20 JvJ
> First of all: I don't EXACTLY mean duplicate elements. I just mean
> duplicates in those parts of the elements which are compared.
>
> For instance, I recently tried to have a sorted set of 2-element vectors
> where the comparator < was
