Descending sort

[Brad Baxter]

It's pretty late for that after having insulted almost
everyone who might have a shot at solving your
problem. Most of them have already killfiled you
and will never see anything you post, ever again.

Such is life.

Godzilla was a colossus as I recall.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

Regards,

Brad

 

[Colossus]

by the rules of social interaction generally accepted in clpmisc. In case >
you are unfamiliar with these, they include 'If you ask a stupid/unclear
question you must expect harsh words in response; you must not take
these to heart.'.

Be harshing is not polite, as the netiquette says. Please read it.

They also include 'Moralising is in general only acceptable from
regulars who have proved they have something of worth to contribute to
the group.'. (I realise I may be putting myself on the line here, but
I'll risk that...

YOUR rules are unsocial and creates problem. This thread is the
demonstration of thinking like you. Respect and politeness are the base of
good society. Again ,PLEASE, read the netiquette.

Useful, helpful and knowledgable people join relatively infrequently and
leave even less so.

Ok, another opinion.

These hypothetical 'others' are unlikely to be in a position to give
you as much useful help as Anno and the other regulars.

Again another one.

 

[Colossus]

As I wrote in my other post, please quote correctly. I had to check
Gunnar Hjalmarsson's own post above to see what you consider a "very
difficult explanation"... and only now I realize that I gave you the
very same advice (but the 'perldoc -q' one is probably more
effective)!

Did it cost you so much checking Gunnar Hjalmarsson's own post above ?
If so have a vitamin cure !

However your claim is plainly false: the perldoc entry you were
pointed to definitely is *not* "an explanation on how to sort an array
of more fields", either difficult or not. It's the full documentation
of the sort() function

The documentation of something does not include explanations ? If it is
not so why do you waste your time pointing out useless specifications ?
Are you a public employee ?

and certainly it is clear enough as to give
you an idea on how to sort an array "of more fields".

Bah, matter of opinion, to me is not clear. it is really incredible
how many messages this thread is composed of. I made a mistake
in posting the expected output ok, I apologized, but still trolls keep on
replying. It is not the case of arising such a flame, this means in the
Internet language to be a troll.

 

[Michele Dondi]

Did it cost you so much checking Gunnar Hjalmarsson's own post above ?
If so have a vitamin cure !

It did not cost me much. Not just as much as to require a vitamin
cure! Definitely more than finding the correct quotation directly in
your post, period.

Also, in this case I must admit it was not a major concern, but in
other contexts it may well become one! So, just accept this as an
advice: try to quote correctly, always!

Last, due to the nature of propagation of messages in usenet, I may
have never received Gunnar's post. If posted here, then your message
is to be considered of general interest and not a private one, so it
must be of easy access, in terms of content, to anyone.

The documentation of something does not include explanations ? If it is
not so why do you waste your time pointing out useless specifications ?

The documentation of something generally *does* include explanations.
This is not relevant and does *not* contradict what I wrote.

The documentation of sort() indeed *does* include explanations!
However it is *not* "an explanation on how to sort an array of more
fields", which was *your* claim, and since you deleted it from
quotations, I'm pasting it here again:

What you call suitable is a very difficult
explanation on how to sort an array of more fields.

Hence my comment: no, it is *not*, period!

And my time (and FWIW Gunnar's) was not wasted pointing out that
reference because it is far from being a collection of "useless
specifications". But then, if you have any evidence that makes you
*think* this is not the case, why don't you expose it?

Bah, matter of opinion, to me is not clear. it is really incredible
how many messages this thread is composed of. I made a mistake
in posting the expected output ok, I apologized, but still trolls keep on
replying. It is not the case of arising such a flame, this means in the
Internet language to be a troll.

I don't think so. I guess you're more probable to be considered a
troll: it's a matter of opinion too. And opinions are made by the
people who take part to a discussion. But that is not the point: I,
for one, do not think you are a troll. You have been arrogant though,
without there being any reason, IMHO.

However the non-flame content left here is: "what is not clear in the
pieces of documentation you were pointed to?", provided you're still
interested. Are you?!?


PS: I (have to) read news offline; this circumstance may contribute to
the "keeping on replying" effect, I hope you can understand me. Since
you actually apologized, I won't add anything that is not Perl-related
in subsequent follow-ups.


Ciao,
Michele