• Jesse Phillips (8/8) Feb 06 2014 The documentation states:
• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/9) Feb 06 2014 Yah, it's a historical order artifact.

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

The documentation states:

"The two ranges are assumed to be sorted by less."

Would it make more sense for this function, and its siblings, to 
take a SortedRange instead. This would be a breaking change as it 
would require people to either sort or assumeSorted before 
calling.

But SortedRange was added for exactly this application (I 
believe).

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 2/6/14, 9:35 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 The documentation states:

 "The two ranges are assumed to be sorted by less."

 Would it make more sense for this function, and its siblings, to take a
 SortedRange instead. This would be a breaking change as it would require
 people to either sort or assumeSorted before calling.

 But SortedRange was added for exactly this application (I believe).

Yah, it's a historical order artifact.

Andrei