half-blind-sort is a great idea (and so is {rand()<rand} ).
Couldn't resist sort{rand(2)-1} as it's shorter by 2 and truer blind.
Update/Correction: as vr rightly notes, int(rand(2)-1) is constantly 0!!! Because sort expects an integer back from the comparison BLOCK and int()'ing rand(2)-1 leaves just 0 :(. So, both these compensate for that bug and are uniformly random too: sort{rand(6)-4} and sort{1-rand(3)%3}
In reply to Re^2: A little golfing challenge: replace digits by random letters
by bliako
in thread A little golfing challenge: replace digits by random letters
by haukex
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |