On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 3:13 PM M.v.Gulik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> After fixing my local bug I rechecked the "*.sort{ a, b -> a.y == b.y ? -a.y
> <=> -b.y : a.x <=> b.x }" variant.
> Same result/conclusion.
In terms of referencing the properties, you'd want to swap the order
you have above, i.e. you'd not want to have y ? y : x but rather y ? x
: y or x ? y : x.
Also, the "*.sort" would only be needed if you have lists of lists of maps.
> However, on a hunch, I split in into two separate consecutive sorts. "*.sort{
> a, b -> a.x <=> b.x }.sort{ a, b -> -a.y <=> -b.y }"
> So far this seems to do the job of fully sorting my 2d/coordinates set. (so
> far: no guaranties, as the used data set is somewhat limited and specific.)
This doesn't seem right as written. Perhaps you are abbreviating and
leaving out some info that I am missing.
