First of all, I did not recommend that sorting method.
I personally believe that I did never claim nor imply that you did; indeed you may notice that in the post you're replying to, I wrote: "a terribly wrong technique has been advertised" and the link under "advertised" points to a post of BooK. I replied to yours because one may have the impression that removing the "0 inconvenience" the technique may work after all: admittedly, I had overlooked that other post of yours, but then perhaps others would as well. I hope that you take no offense and that you will agree that the caveat earned much more visibility with the aid of these interventions...
In reply to Re^3: RE (tilly) 2: Randomize an array
by blazar
in thread Randomize an array
by Zebu
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |