On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:58:02PM -0000, Randal L. Schwartz via RT wrote: > # New Ticket Created by (Randal L. Schwartz) > # Please include the string: [perl #36354] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36354 > > > > > eq_set (I know, deprecated, but it's still broken) does this: > > sort { ref $a ? -1 : ref $b ? 1 : $a cmp $b } @$a1 > > I think the intent was to put all references at the beginning, and > then compare everything else directly. Maybe not. Hard to tell. > > However, if the entire list is references (as it is with Class::DBI's > t/04-*.t test), then the sort routine gets "-1" for every pairwise > comparison. As this is undefined, the result is random, and apparently > different on different machines, and different versions, and > different compilers, as I've spent the last few hours diagnosing. > > If the purpose is merely to provide a *consistent* sorting, this will > suffice: > > sort { (ref $a) cmp (ref $b) or $a cmp $b } @$a1 > > This puts all the references after all the non-references, then sorts > all the items according to their stringification. I *think* that > gets you 95% of the way there, if not 100%. > > Anyway... classic example of how *not* to write a sort sub. :)
Yes. There's no reason to not be more explicite about ones intentions.
And you don't even have to use extra variables:
sort (grep {ref} @$a1), sort (grep {!ref} @$a1)
It's probably faster as well, as it doesn't use a sort sub.
Abigail
pgp5qWItyNQG0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
