Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • And yeah, you can make a case for returning an item count instead of just undef.
    • See my perlmonks posting on scalar context [perlmonks.org]. "Count" is actually in the minority for things being returned in a scalar context.

      I think a much more interesting thing would be a floating point value between 0 and 1 of how many adjacent pairs of items already meet the sort criteria, so "1..5" would be 1, but "reverse 1..5" would be 0.

      --
      • Randal L. Schwartz
      • Stonehenge
      • That sortedness factor you propose sounds really useless. 0 + sort qw( 1 3 5 7 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 ) would return 0.9. But what am I supposed to conclude from that? The list is certainly not 90% sorted, nor can I think of any other way in which this metric might be useful.

        OTOH, returning the item count would allow parity for

        sub foo { sort @_ }

        with

        sub bar { map $_, @_ }

        and

        sub baz { grep 1, @_ }

        in scalar context.

        And item count in scalar context is actually the majority among functions that take a list and returns a list in list context [perlmonks.org].

        • Okay, it would return 0.8, because the default sort comparator is alphanumeric, not numeric, but you get the point.
        • I think "number of items" would be fairly useless. I mean, why should the word "sort" be there if all you want is the count? It would lead to misleading (and also non-backward compatible) code.

          Maybe I'm the only Perl person on the planet that does not presume "length of list in scalar context" for every list-returning operation, but I think it's a fair starting place.

          From a practical perspective, channelling Larry here for a moment (which after nearly two decades, I'm getting only slightly better at),

          --
          • Randal L. Schwartz
          • Stonehenge
          • Lack of parity with map and grep means that implementation details leak out of a function. The caller needs to know whether a function does return sort @foo or something like return map bar($_), sort @foo – even when the sorting is just a part of the function’s contract and not the operation of interest.

            That’s just ridiculous.

            Also: first you say it would lead to non-backward compatible code, then you say it was left open for expansion. Which is it?

            • But you missed my point. I would not presume that a random subroutine that I called returned a length in a scalar context when only documented to return a list in a list context. So why should "sort" encourage that behavior. Instead, we should be getting the word out there to stop presuming that!
              --
              • Randal L. Schwartz
              • Stonehenge
              • Ah. That is a more reasonable position.

                I still don’t see the point. A superbly useful special semantic for the scalar context return of sort will never materialise. It’s been “open for expansion” for over a decade and will remain so for the next one, too.

                I’d rather rid the world of another special case, boring as that may be, and spare five people per year the surprise of tripping over this.

                But eh.