Re: Evaluation Disorder

Is that somehow incorrect? bleh() will return either a sorted list of its arguments @_, or 0 (sorted, to no avail).

So you would expect to see the sorted list of input parameters, no?

sub bleh
{
    if (@_)
    {
         return sort @_;
    }
    else
    {
         return sort 0;
    }
}
[download]

Same thing, really, except that ?: doesn't use any BLOCKs.

Comment on Re: Evaluation Disorder Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Evaluation Disorder by MeowChow (Vicar) on Apr 06, 2001 at 08:44 UTC
Update: D'oh I am completely wrong .. didn't catch the precendence (I thought the sort was coming before the trinary ?: )	[reply]
Re^3: Evaluation Disorder by tadman (Prior) on Apr 06, 2001 at 19:43 UTC
?: binds tighter than a function, so it takes precedence, yes. `sub bleh { sort @_ ? @_ : 0; }` [download] Which is the same as: `sub bleh { sort (@_ ? @_ : 0); }` [download] But perhaps you meant: `sub bleh { (sort @_) ? @_ : 0; }` [download] Though I'm not really sure what you mean by this at all, since you aren't really using the results of the `sort` for any constructive purpose.	[reply] [d/l] [select]