On Thu, September 30, 2010 9:44 am, Adam Harvey wrote:
> Unrelated to the Comparable RFC, are there any objections to adding a
> function that simply wraps compare_function()? It's depressingly
> common to end up writing a construct like the following in comparison
> callbacks, so I think we might
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:44, Adam Harvey wrote:
> Well, while I'm sending e-mails...
>
> Unrelated to the Comparable RFC, are there any objections to adding a
> function that simply wraps compare_function()? It's depressingly
> common to end up writing a construct like the following in compariso
On 10/01/2010 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Can we make it an operator-like (is_a for example) instead? It
could be more efficient.
Operator has a downside that you can't pass it as a parameter. We
could have something like <=> (spaceship operator!) or even cmp
though :)
OT: Stas, coul
On 1 October 2010 06:26, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Can we make it an operator-like (is_a for example) instead? It could
>> be more efficient.
>
> Operator has a downside that you can't pass it as a parameter. We could have
> something like <=> (spaceship operator!) or even cmp though :)
Yeah, I thi
Hi!
Can we make it an operator-like (is_a for example) instead? It could
be more efficient.
Operator has a downside that you can't pass it as a parameter. We could
have something like <=> (spaceship operator!) or even cmp though :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://w
hi,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I'd like var_compare().
> Quick search in google reveals cmp() being used in actual code, and
> compare() to some extent too, though mostly as method, so not really
> clashing.
Sounds good.
Can we make it an operator-like (is_a for e
Hi!
If I don't hear kicking and screaming in the next few days, I'll slip
this into trunk. I can provide a patch/RFC in advance if there's
demand, but it'll be about as simple as you imagine. :)
Sounds good.
The one thing that I would like bikeshedding^Wfeedback on is the name:
cmp() makes t
On 30 September 2010 15:44, Adam Harvey wrote:
> Well, while I'm sending e-mails...
>
> Unrelated to the Comparable RFC, are there any objections to adding a
> function that simply wraps compare_function()? It's depressingly
> common to end up writing a construct like the following in comparison
>
Well, while I'm sending e-mails...
Unrelated to the Comparable RFC, are there any objections to adding a
function that simply wraps compare_function()? It's depressingly
common to end up writing a construct like the following in comparison
callbacks, so I think we might as well encapsulate the pat
