Subject: bug#69709: `sort` interface improvement and universal ordering predicate

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:03:31 +0200

On 10/03/2024 17:56, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> 10 mars 2024 kl. 16.48 skrev Dmitry Gutov<[email-masked]>:
> 
>> Here's a concern: a lot of existing code is written with either mutability in mind (the source list is a throwaway one, owned by the caller), or coupled with copy-sequence already.
>>
>> If the new 'sort' default to non-destructive, wouldn't that make those existing callsites slower? Or at least some of them.
> No, with the old calling convention they would get destructive (in-place) sorting. There should be no incompatibilities at all.

I see. That sounds more confusing, though (you drop the 'pred' argument, 
and the function changes behavior, possibly becoming slower too).