Fix lexicographical ordering of sequences #8400
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 7 commits
August 8, 2013 22:07
Use Eq + Ord for lexicographical ordering of sequences.
For each of <, <=, >= or > as R, use::
[x, ..xs] R [y, ..ys] = if x != y { x R y } else { xs R ys }
Previous code using `a < b` and then `!(b < a)` for short-circuiting
fails on cases such as [1.0, 2.0] < [0.0/0.0, 3.0], where the first
element was effectively considered equal.
(A,) did not have the trait implementations of 2- to 12- tuples.
Use the definition, where R is <, <=, >=, or >
[x, ..xs] R [y, ..ys] = if x != y { x R y } else { xs R ys }
Previously, tuples would only implement < and derive the other
comparisons from it; this is incorrect. Included are several testcases
involving NaN comparisons that are now correct.
Previously, tuples would consider an element equal if both a < b and
b < a were false, this was also incorrect.
added 2 commits
August 8, 2013 23:07
Just like the Ord methods, Eq::ne needs to be implemented in terms of the same operation on the elements.
|
This looks good to me, and it seems well-tested. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 12, 2013
Use Eq + Ord for lexicographical ordering of sequences.
For each of <, <=, >= or > as R, use::
[x, ..xs] R [y, ..ys] = if x != y { x R y } else { xs R ys }
Previous code using `a < b` and then `!(b < a)` for short-circuiting
fails on cases such as [1.0, 2.0] < [0.0/0.0, 3.0], where the first
element was effectively considered equal.
Containers like &[T] did also implement only one comparison operator `<`,
and derived the comparison results from this. This isn't correct either for
Ord.
Implement functions in `std::iterator::order::{lt,le,gt,ge,equal,cmp}` that all
iterable containers can use for lexical order.
We also visit tuple ordering, having the same problem and same solution
(but differing implementation).
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2022
Split matches Part of rust-lang#6680 changelog: None
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Use Eq + Ord for lexicographical ordering of sequences.
For each of <, <=, >= or > as R, use::
Previous code using
a < band then!(b < a)for short-circuitingfails on cases such as [1.0, 2.0] < [0.0/0.0, 3.0], where the first
element was effectively considered equal.
Containers like &[T] did also implement only one comparison operator
<,and derived the comparison results from this. This isn't correct either for
Ord.
Implement functions in
std::iterator::order::{lt,le,gt,ge,equal,cmp}that alliterable containers can use for lexical order.
We also visit tuple ordering, having the same problem and same solution
(but differing implementation).