# Simple Arrays

Bob Sneidar bobs at twft.com
Sat Jan 9 19:12:42 CST 2010

```Hi all.

Apparently I am not getting arrays AT ALL. I would think that given:

put "1" & comma & "A" & comma & "Green" & return into theData
put "2" & comma & "B" & comma & "Blue" & return after theData
put "3" & comma & "C" & comma & "Orange" & return after theData
put "4" & comma & "D" & comma & "White" & return after theData

which would get me:
1,A,Green
2,B,Blue
3,C,Orange
4,D,White

I could then split by column (or by row I get confused) and get a simple array where:
theData[1,1] = "1"
theData[1,2] = "A"
theData[2,1] = "2"
theData[4,3] = "White"

And so forth. However, this is NOT the case! If it were, I could issue a command:

put transpose(theData) into myArray

and:
myArray[1,2] = 2
myArray[1,3] = 3

and so on. If I got the entire row (I think there's a function for that) then I would have effectively gotten the column of the original data. Seems reasonable eh?

So can someone please explain to me why I cannot get a simple x,y row,column grid-like array using these simple commands? Revolution seems to think that the first column MUST be the key! I would LIKE for revolution to simply create it's OWN numerical keys and let my data be my data. Maybe in the future add an argument to the split and combine commands to tell it whether or not I WANT Revolution to treat my first column as the key?

If arrays worked like I described above, it would be a simple matter to get a single column of an array, just by transposing it and getting an entire row, instead of writing complex repeat loops to get a column of data. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for any wisdom you can give. I can save some helpful souls the trouble of responding by saying I am capable of making repeat loops to accomplish this. I was just hoping that maybe I was missing something and I can in fact do what I thought I could.

Bob
```