HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
For any numeric type of $x, $x++ should mean $x += 1.3.14 becomes
4.14. -3.14 becomes -2.14 (which indicates that floor() is not
involved) . 5/8 becomes 13/8. The step size is irrelevant. If $x is
so large that adding 1 gets lost due to the precision, then OK, ++
t/spec/S29-list/sort.t has the following test:
my @a = (2, 45, 6, 1, 3);
my @e = (1, 2, 3, 6, 45);
my @s = { $^a <=> $^b }.sort: @a;
is(@s, @e, '... with closure as direct invocant');
S29 doesn't show a 'sort' method defined on block/closure
invocants... should there be?
Note
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
S29 doesn't show a 'sort' method defined on block/closure
invocants... should there be?
I doubt that. And to my eyes it looks funny. Only real block
methods should be useful and since the class is mostly known
at parse time unapplicable methods should be a co
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:27:26PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> >Note that we already have:
> >
> >my @s = sort { $^a <=> $^b }, @a;
> >my @s = @a.sort { $^a <=> $^b };
>
> Is that the adverbial block syntax? If not how
> would it look?
The adverbial block syntax would be:
@a.sort:{ $^a <=> $
