Re: issorted & sortrows

[John W. Eaton]

On 11-Feb-2009, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

| Here, this is not so easily possible. The type of
| octave_sort<T>::compare is bool (*) (T, T), not bool (*) (const T&,
| const T&), so you'd get a type mismatch. The first form is probably
| more suitable for simple built-in types, the latter for complex ones.
| Supporting both would be possible but somewhat complicated.

I don't see why it shouldn't use "const T&".  Doing that shouldn't
cause trouble for built-in types, and has some advantage for aggregate
types like Complex or some other class or structure that we may use
later.  I don't understand why it was ever defined to just use T.

jwe