[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: vector-binary-search

On 31 Mar 2004, campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> It's not quite as clear-cut as you make it seem.  Olin Shivers stuck
> with the convention because there were no inherent benefits _for_those_
> sorting_algorithms_.  However, there _are_ inherent benefits for
> _searching_ (and for a few sorting algorithms).

Olin planned to have versions of sort functions with suffix "3".
So, maybe the compromise could be the same for this SRFI-43:
to have both, vector-binary-search and vector-binary-search3
> > My other problem with three-way comparators is the fact that there 
> > is no three-way boolean to represent their results; symbols and
> > -1, 0, 1 are equally bad in this respect, more so because of 
> > lack of precedent (no standard Scheme function uses symbols
> > as flags or enumerated options). 
> > 
> > P.S. Symbols are actually worse than -1, 0, 1 because with
> > the latter, one can use, say, * as a substitute for three-way 
> > boolean operations; with symbols all operations have to be 
> > written explicitly.
> I'm sticking with negative, zero, and positive.  That convention is
> used all over the place, it's efficient, and it's convenient.

Agreed. (This was exactly Olin's reply to my (naive) proposal to use 3
symbols for representing comparison results.)


Attachment: pgpmhz5pSC257.pgp
Description: PGP signature