Why is there no isless(::Int64, ::UnitRange{Int64})?

[mnemnion]

@o314

One should better consider things like

Consider how? If you treat a UnitRange like a collection, it will behave like a collection. That’s true throughout Julia, consider minimum(3, 4) and minimum(3, [4]).

[o314]

Yes but it is o(n) instead of o(1) according to length(range)

[o314]

@screw_dog

I think it’s generally better to not have default comparisons between scalars and collections

deserve a lot of likes . may be (certainly) more than what minimum and maximum merits nowaday

julia lacks a good statically dispatchable interface on iterable
one should think about data shaping and mapping and not collapse them inadvertently. these should be treat like data invariants and preserve like beloved physical constant

[mnemnion]

@o314

Yes but it is o(n) instead of o(1) according to length(range)

But maximum and minimum are optimized:

minimum(r::AbstractUnitRange) = isempty(r) ? throw(ArgumentError("range must be non-empty")) : first(r)
maximum(r::AbstractUnitRange) = isempty(r) ? throw(ArgumentError("range must be non-empty")) : last(r)

I would say that scalar < minimum(vector) is better code than all(<(scalar), vector), many Vectors take advantage of the opportunity to give O(log(n)) or O(1) results for minimum and maximum.