As for -1 , 0 , 1, we must encode 3 possible results:

value1 is before value2 (<)

value1 is same rank as value2 (=)

value1 is after value2 (>)

Using numbers -1,0,+1 to encode these results is clever, because it's trivial to revert the order (just take the opposite, or multiply by -1)

So it's widespread in programming community, it's cultural

We could use any other convention like Symbols #(< = >), that would convey a bit more meaning,

but there's no need to go against culture if we have no superior solution (wrt inversion)

2017-11-05 18:30 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>:

Hi Stef

Collation is the accurate and correct term

If I google: Unicode comparison algorithm for example, the first hit is:

UTS #10: Unicode Collation Algorithm - Unicode.org
http://unicode.org/reports/tr10/

collationner (collate) has a second meaning, even in French:

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/collationner

Interestingly, the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collation isn't even translated in French...

Maybe i's not popular enough in French (un mot savant)...

I'm not good enough in English to tell if it has same "snob" connotation

Nicolas

2017-11-05 17:49 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com>:

Hi nicolas

where it is defined that collation is something returning -1, 0, 1?
I'm always thinking to newcomers that have to learn yet another
concept and here for nothing.
Because SortFunction with a nice comment saying that it should return
-1, 0, 1 looks simpler that CollatorFunction which tells me nothing,
except that may be this is about drinking (for french).


Stef

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Nicolas Cellier
<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2017-11-05 10:16 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 5 Nov 2017, at 06:00, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi guys
>> >
>> > Why do we rename class Sort to introduce terms that have unknown,
>> > unclear, undocumented meaning?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> >
>> > To me PluggableSortFunction is MUCH better than CollatorBlockFunction.
>>
>> but pluggable is also bad, IMO.
>> also I see there is some incoherence in the names:
>
>
> agree with Esteban, Pluggable pouah!
>
>>
>> ChainedSortFunction -> this is kind of ok, but I think a
>> ���ComposedSortFunction��� is better.
>
>
> But there can be several kind of composition...
> For example wrapped as illustrated with UnderfinedSorter refactoring that I
> proposed.
> Personnally I like Chained because it explicitely tells the kind of
> composition
>
>> SortByPropertyFunction -> shouldn���t be ���PropertySortFunction����� ? (coherent
>> with the previous one)
>
>
> +1 for PropertySortFunction, or maybe just PropertySorter
>
>> CollatorSortFunction -> this is like a ���BlockSortFunction��� or
>> ���ValuableSortFunction��� ?
>
>
> CollatorBlockFunction is only a proxy to the block so as it answers to
> #threeWayCompare:with: protocol rather than value:value:
> It's a Block view as a CollatorFunction.
> The name first surprised me negatively, but after reflexion it tells what it
> is.
>
> 1) Collator indicates that the block (valuable) will return -1, 0 or +1
>
> 2) It's not necessarily a block, it could be anything understanding
> value:value:
> But, the valuable should return -1,0,+1, so apart <=> (threeWayCompareTo:)
> it ain't gonna be anything but a block in practice.
> For <=> we would want a DefaultSortFunction and would not use a
> CollatorBlockFunction.
>
> 3) Function refers to SortFunction.
> For this, I'm neutral, whether you call it Sorter or SortFunction I don't
> care.
> SortFunction kind of implies these are stateless, so it's a rather good and
> accurate name.
> Maybe a Sorter could be more confusing, because a Sorter could be thought as
> having the sorted collection as instance variable (statefull).
>
> Nicolas
>
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>> >
>> > Stef
>> >
>>
>>
>