Simple Arrays

[Phil Davis]

Hi Bob,

On 1/9/10 5:12 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> 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
>    

Actually either of these:

     split theData with cr
     split theData by row -- where the rowDelimiter is CR

would get you this:

     theData[1] = "1,A,Green"
     theData[2] = "2,B,Blue"
     theData[3] = "3,C,Orange"
     theData[4] = "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!

Right. Technically speaking, comma is not an array index separator. 
Commas in our array keys help us conceptually represent multiple array 
dimensions in our own minds, but Rev sees an array with such keys as a 
simple one-dimensional array with alphabetic keys (since commas are not 
numerals).

Until version 3.0, Rev couldn't handle true multi-dimensional arrays. 
Since then, the thing that tells Rev "this is a multi-dimensional array" 
is multiple keys per element, with each key in its own bracket. Like this:

     theData[1][1] = "1"
     theData[1][2] = "A"
     theData[1][3] = "Green"


Now do you see why 'transpose()' wouldn't work with your array? In part 
it's because your keys aren't numeric - they contain commas. (Also they 
have to be sequential numbers.)

Welcome to array re-education camp!  ;-)

Phil Davis


>   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_______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
>    

-- 
Phil Davis

PDS Labs
Professional Software Development
http://pdslabs.net