From: "Peña, Botp" <botp@...>
Date: 2007-06-30T12:32:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Array Problem, sort Array

On Behalf Of dblack@wobblini.net
#But it's a question of whether <=> is defined or not, so C.new is in
#exactly the same position as nil.  So the question is: if [C.new]
#(one-element array) "sorts", why should [nil] not "sort"?

yes, single elements do return _regardless_. i was used to thinking nil-filled arrays wont sort directly. pls forgive my noise.

in general,
  [anyobject].sort always return [anyobject]
  but
  [anyobject,anyobject].sort may or may not be defined (unless filtered by block)

thanks to everyone for the enlightenment.
kind regards -botp

ps: this may be for a new thread, and i should have asked this a long time ago, but: why no <=> op for nil? so [nil, nil, nil].sort => [nil, nil, nil]