On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:44 +0200, apfelmus wrote:
I think that
sortBy (comparing f)
is a very good and modular name for the functionality intended, no need to create another one. The only advantage of a special sortOn function would be that you can document it, i.e. there's no haddock blurb for sortBy (comparing f) .
Lets fix the sortBy documentation to mention the comparing idiom.
Hm, though sortOn could be useful if it caches the values of f by default, like the sortOn' proposed. But Jean-Philippe's code is a beautiful solution for this situation.
+1 concerning Down,
but I don't like the name. In particular I don't like the "get" prefix in "getDown". I'd simply use
Can't we do it with just some compare flip function: sortBy (thing compare) or sortBy (thing $ comparing fieldFoo) Would that work and what would be a good name? Duncan