Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Add clamp function

Hi On 8/28/25 20:26, Kyle Katarn wrote:

Just my opinion but the function aims to provide an alternative to min(max()) that would be: - easier to read - faster to execute If having many different behaviors depending on an option and so a lot of if-else path complexity, then it will tend to defeat the second goal. I

Adding an additional parameter to switch between 4 modes of comparison hardly qualifies as “a lot of if-else path complexity”. That can be done with a single switch() statement. I doubt that you can measure a meaningful difference in speed and if you can, then it's still possible to optimize based on the expected path (i.e. closed intervals). Since a big part of your argument in favor of the clamp() function is “performance” (both in your reply here and in the introduction to the RFC): Please add meaningful benchmarks to the RFC text that show how much faster clamp() is actually going to be compared to alternative solutions.

would add it if there is a strong interest, otherwise I'd rather stick to a minimalist implementation (like seen in most languages where clamp() is available.

Best regards Tim Düsterhus