Stop using view in adaptive sort

[LilithHafner]

Fixes #45522

[LilithHafner]

Local tests look good

(jl_2RvVlb) pkg> status
Status `/private/var/folders/hc/fn82kz1j5vl8w7lwd4l079y80000gn/T/jl_2RvVlb/Project.toml`
  [c2308a5c] FASTX v1.3.0

julia> using FASTX

julia> println(first(FASTQ.Reader(IOBuffer("@A\nA\n+\nA"))))
@A
A
+
A

I don't think we should include this test in test/sorting.jl.

[ViralBShah]

Should we try get this merged, or should we wait on the refactor?

[LilithHafner]

Let's proceed here. The changes are pretty low risk, and I'd be happy to merge as is. I don't think bounds checking is necessary here given the conventions we have in this part of the codebase. Still, this code only runs for lengths > 30 ish, so we can add explicit bounds checking before the loop without measurable performance overhead if folks prefer it that way.

[ViralBShah]

Yeah it would be good to bring the bounds check in and get this merged. Does that also pave the way to making sorting an stdlib?

[LilithHafner]

I think it makes sense to improve quicksort before refactoring because one of the advantages it brings is that making quicksort stable simplifies policy, which will be good to either take advantage of (if it merges) or not wrongly hope for (if benchmarking or code review comes out catastrophically negative).

I also think that making sorting a stdlib should come after refactoring because part of sorting will have to stay behind for Core.Compiler.Sort.sort!, and I'd like to have sorting nicely formatted when it comes time to make that split.

This PR is orthoganal.

[LilithHafner]

Not entirely orthogonal, that build error and merge conflict would not have happened if sorting was a stdlib.

[LilithHafner]

This looks good to me. If other folks agree, I'd like to merge it so I can use _issorted to address #45222 (comment).

[ViralBShah]

Would it be helpful to have a label for sorting?

[ViralBShah]

I believe CI is down for maintenance. So this probably needs to be held until CI is back online and we can run everything again.

[LilithHafner]

Would it be helpful to have a label for sorting?

It would be helpful to me. I often find myself using the search term "sort". I'd be happy to make a label and tag some historical items if you think it's appropriate. We have Dates, TOML, Unicode and RNG labels which this feels somewhat comparable to.

So this probably needs to be held until CI is back online and we can run everything again.

The results from 11 hours ago seem pretty good to me. Is there a worry that they are a false positive?

[ViralBShah]

Ok, maybe the bots are back online. I thought the runs were stale.