On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:25:22 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
>> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
>> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
>> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
>> th
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:25:22 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
>> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
>> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
>> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
>> th
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:10:03 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
>> The PR title "The sorting of the SortedList can become invalid" seems to
>> imply that the sorting can become incorrect, as in the incorrect order.
>>
>> This is not the case. The sorting is still correct. Claiming that the
>> sorting is
> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
> the correct order.
Loay Ghreeb has updated the pull request
> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
> the correct order.
Loay Ghreeb has updated the pull request
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 11:53:00 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>>> This is not the case. The sorting is still correct. Claiming that the
>>> sorting is invalid because a newly added item was not placed in a specific
>>> location relative to other equal items is a bit of misrepresentation.
>>>
>>> So,
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:10:03 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
> Shift + Click again on Col2 to remove the sort from Col2. The order will stay
> the same [1, 0, 3, 2], but the expected order is [1, 0, 2, 3] as in step 2.
Why is that the expected order? It is "a" possible, but valid order. When
only so
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:11:24 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> This is not the case. The sorting is still correct. Claiming that the sorting
> is invalid because a newly added item was not placed in a specific location
> relative to other equal items is a bit of misrepresentation.
>
> So, if this PR
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 03:30:09 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
>> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
>> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
>> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
>> th
> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
> the correct order.
Loay Ghreeb has updated the pull request
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 04:13:30 GMT, Loay Ghreeb wrote:
> Fix an issue in `SortedList` where the sorting became incorrect when adding
> new items that are equal to existing items according to the comparator. The
> `SortedList` should consider the insertion index of these items to maintain
> the c
11 matches
Mail list logo
