Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3599682
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 18, 20262026-05-18T20:23:53+00:00 2026-05-18T20:23:53+00:00

Is there a reason why there is no implicit Ordering for Lists in Scala?

  • 0

Is there a reason why there is no implicit Ordering for Lists in Scala?

val lists = List(List(2, 3, 1), List(2, 1, 3))
lists.sorted

error: could not find implicit value for parameter ord: Ordering[List[Int]]

EDIT

Yes, my question is why there is no built-in Ordering that’s already implicitly in scope. To me, it seems obvious that the second list should be “less than” the first list since the items at 0 are equal and the second list has the lower item at 1. I was wondering if maybe it’s that there’s no good answer when the Lists are two different sizes.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-18T20:23:54+00:00Added an answer on May 18, 2026 at 8:23 pm

    I think it’s an oversight. Lexicographic ordering does make sense on Seqs. We should add it to the standard library.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is there a reason why there is no implicit Ordering for Lists in Scala?
Is there any reason not to use the bitwise operators &, |, and ^
Is there any reason something like this would not work? This is the logic
Is there any reason not to set up the install so that major upgrade
Is there a reason why the implicit copy constructor for a struct containing an
Is there a technical reason why there is no implicit conversion from DBNull to
Is there any reason why I should pick JSON over XML, or vice-versa if
Is there any reason to use a varchar field instead of a date field
Is there any reason to start a GUI program (application for Windows) written in
Is there a reason why most function definition in device driver in linux code

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.