Re: Re: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 11, 2002 at 18:24 UTC
Even fixed length strings are not really a guarantee; `cmp` will do the wrong thing for `CC100A` vs `CC1000` too. It's always better to be safe than sorry. Note my code sample did not use a Schwartzian Transform because if the data set is as small as what he showed, it isn't worth the CPU time to set it up; I merely wanted him to be aware of it, should he need such. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^4: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays by RMGir (Prior) on Sep 11, 2002 at 18:29 UTC
Good point about making him aware of the ST option. However, why are you so sure that lexicographic sorting would be wrong? It's quite possible that CC100A _does_ go after CC1000, in his system... (Well, ok, CCI10A vs CCI100, to follow his format more closely). The sort order is under-specified, but it appears from his one example that cmp would be satisfactory... I admit that a 4 item example is a bit slim :) -- Mike	[reply]
Re^5: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 11, 2002 at 18:39 UTC
It's quite possible that CC100A _does_ go after CC1000, in his system... That would be what I call an accidental feature.. `:-)` Better to be safe than sorry, remember? The `substr` solution will work regardless of circumstances and won't surprisingly blow up if he moves the script to a system with different alphanumeric order. I am in no way dismissing `cmp` off hand as it is indeed a candidate if you are absolutely certain about your data format. But that's just what I find to be a dangerous assumption. I mean, who needs four digit years, right? `:-)` See also my signature.. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^5: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays by sauoq (Abbot) on Sep 11, 2002 at 19:17 UTC
Re^7: Sorting multi-dimensional arrays by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 11, 2002 at 19:29 UTC