From: "juan pedro meriño" <juapdiaz@...>
Date: 2007-06-29T01:29:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Array Problem, sort Array

------=_Part_59023_25590702.1183048190783
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

When i found a shoppyng under ruby?

2007/6/28, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net>:
>
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Pe=F1a, Botp wrote:
>
> > # > A little digression for everyone though...
> > # >   irb(main):013:0> [nil].sort
> > # >   =3D> [nil]
> > # >
> > # > is that intended?
> > #
> > # Well, you don't need the comparison operator where there's only one
> > # element, do you ?
> >
> > careful with the "one" there. The array returned may be complex.
> > eg,
> > irb(main):029:0> [[nil,[nil,"a"]]].sort
> > =3D> [[nil, [nil, "a"]]]
> > irb(main):030:0> [[nil,[nil,"a"]]].flatten.sort
> > NoMethodError: undefined method `<=3D>' for nil:NilClass
> >        from (irb):30:in `sort'
> >
> > again, as i've said to Phrogz, the behavior hints that nil elements by
> themselves are sortable. Remember, programs contain blackboxes wc may be
> complex and not obvious, eg
> >   complex_proc_ret_array.sort_complex.foo_proc.bar_proc
> >
> > one could argue bluntly too, eg
> > [nil].sort
> > =3D>[nil]      # yes, there is no need to sort
> > [nil,nil].sort
> > =3D>[nil,nil]  # yes, there is no need to sort
> >
> > I really value consistency of object behavior when it comes to ruby,
> maybe because it's too dynamic and i want least number of surprises
> (especially when you chain things).
>
> What about:
>
>   class C; end
>   [C.new].sort
>
> ?
>
>
> David
>
> --
> * Books:
>   RAILS ROUTING (new! http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321509242)
>   RUBY FOR RAILS (http://www.manning.com/black)
> * Ruby/Rails training
>     & consulting:  Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)
>



--=20
Juan Pedro Meri=F1o Diaz
Ing de Sistema CURN

------=_Part_59023_25590702.1183048190783--