Re: Sorting in-place

[Bart Lateur]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:04:23 -0400, Clinton A . Pierce wrote:

>But the problem solved is similar to that of keys/values and each; and
>the "smart" range operators in later perls: avoiding having heaping piles of
>crap returned by an operator/function that can better be done in place.  If
>we can do this without adding a keyword I don't see why not.
>
>This feels like the Right Thing to do.  It really does.

Oh.

Wouldn't swapping two references be faster than swapping two scalars?

Then couldn't a minimal "list" be an array of pointers, typically 4
bytes each, while the scalar itself is the possibly dereferenced value,
plus an overhead of roughly 30 bytes?

-- 
        Bart.