Re: Associative array sorting

["Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1178 bytes --]

It sounds good, but *a* applies to indexes, not keys, and those aren't the
same thing. Mind, I think that it would be good if, at least for purposes
of expansion flags, indexes and keys *were* unified, so e.g. *k* on a
regular array would return an array of indexes, and *kv* would interleave
indexes with values (like Python enumerate), etc. But that's not the case
today.


On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:45 PM Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 1/19/24 14:18, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > I was just looking at this in the manual --
> >
> > a
> >       Sort in array index order; when combined with 'O' sort in reverse
> >       array index order.  Note that 'a' is therefore equivalent to the
> >       default but 'Oa' is useful for obtaining an array's elements in
> >       reverse order.
> >
> > Like (o), (a) applies after the param is turned into an ordinary
> > array, so "equivalent to the default" kind of gets us off the hook,
> > but this would be the obvious place to attach sorting the associative
> > array by key rather than by raw hash traversal.
> >
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
>
>

-- 
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1797 bytes --]