RFR 8014076: Arrays parallel and serial sorting improvements

[Chris Hegarty]

On 05/09/2013 10:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> ....
>> Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting
>> any value in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely
>> removing any reference to this?
>
> The compile-time constant issue is easily fixed by using an
> initialization function.
>
> I think it is important for users to know what the sequential sorting
> threshold is.

I don't understand why this is important. Is the general advise not, 
always use parallelSort unless there is a good reason not to?

-Chris

>
> David
> -----
>
>> -Chris
>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>