Daniel Waite wrote:
> Florian Frank wrote:
>> Don't do this, better use (1..10).sort_by { rand }. Your version is
>> equivalent to (1..10).sort { 1 } and *always* creates the same
>> permutation for this array.
> 
> It's random for me. Both work.

No, really, it isn't. It may "look random", but try sorting (1..10) many 
times and ponder the coincidence.

-- 
Florian Frank