[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53880] (x<1)(1) depends on x(2):

[Michael Godfrey]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #53880 (project octave):

Michael L said:
So the upshot: it is desirable to have a well-defined total order also on
complex numbers, even if you are not interested in the specific ordering.

========================
This appears to be the best solution. The lexicographic ordering
is fairly "natural" and efficient. Other orderings seem to be
"special cases." It will deserve a clear explanation in the Manual.
In any case, users who have a specific need to "sort" complex numbers
will likely need to choose an ordering that meets their requirements,
and/or preprocess the data.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?53880>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/