DefaultComparator

General JUCE discussion
1

Unless I’ve missed it, this snippet could be added to Juce

/** A default operator based comparator.
     The ElementType class must overload "operator <". 
     Usage is quite simple:
     @code
          Array<ElementType> array;
          array.addSorted(DefaultComparator<ElementType>(), element);
     @endcode
*/
template <typename ElementType>
struct DefaultComparator
{
    static int compareElements (ElementType first, ElementType second)
    {
        if (first < second) return -1;
        if (second < first) return 1;
        return 0;
    }
};

Jules, if you can add this to the array class :

template<typename Comparator = DefaultComparator<ElementType> > 
void addSorted(ElementType element);

This can even simplify our code.

2

That’s a very good idea. In fact, the existing IntegerElementComparator is almost exactly the same thing - I ought to clean that up and give it a more generic name. Not sure why I didn’t do so in the first place, that’s very old code…

3

Once again I’ve been fooled by the documentation. Searching for comparator doesn’t return this class.
Hopefully, you’ll release soon (please also update your copy of doxygen, new version have a javascript based search module).
Anyway, there’s a nice trick to use only one operator : if (first < second) elif (second < first) else equal, so it’s a small step for a class, but it’s a giant leap for class designer. :smiley:

4

I came across a bug in DefaultElementComparator, juce_ElementComparator.h line 252:

static int compareElements (ParameterType first, ParameterType second) { return (first < second) ? -1 : ((first < second) ? 1 : 0); }

Thanks for a fantastic framework. BTW has anyone posted a ready-made fix for displaying juce containers nicely in the Visual Studio debugger?

5

[quote=“fgcapo”]I came across a bug in DefaultElementComparator, juce_ElementComparator.h line 252:

CODE: SELECT ALL
static int compareElements (ParameterType first, ParameterType second)
{
return (first < second) ? -1 : ((first < second) ? 1 : 0);
}
[/quote]

…erm, that’s not what it says in my copy! Are you quoting from a really old version or something? Get up to date, there’s no excuse for not moving up to 1.52 now!