Re: Question about .sort and .reduce

2008-07-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:27:26PM +0200, TSa wrote: 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

Re: Question about .sort and .reduce

2008-07-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:01:09AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: : I'm not entirely certain if any of the following : examples with adverbial blocks would also work. I'm guessing : they do, but could use confirmation. : : sort @a, :{ $^a = $^b }; : sort @a :{ $^a = $^b }; : sort

Re: Question about .sort and .reduce

2008-07-11 Thread TSa
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

Re: Question about .sort and .reduce

2008-07-11 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
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 = $^b };