Sort IP List
bonnmike at gmail.com
Fri Jun 29 18:05:22 EDT 2018
Oh, the above assumes setting the numberformat to "000" as you specified of
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:00 PM Mike Bonner <bonnmike at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thx for the clue, I see what you mean.
> I had tried to get something similar to your value(item 1 of each +0)
> method to work and something wasn't clicking, but after seeing yours, I
> think I have it working.
> sort lines of tList ascending numeric by (item 1 of each +0) & (item 2 of
> each + 0) & (item 3 of each + 0) & (item 4 of each + 0)
> The above seems to work fine (and I avoided using value() to avoid an
> unnecessary function call), you just have to remember to set the
> itemdelimiter to "." otherwise you get the error. This may be faster
> because there aren't a bunch of function calls like my first idea, though
> I'm not sure how overhead compares since the numbers must still be
> Just did some testing and it seems to be way way faster. 100k lines sort
> in 3/4 of a second.
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:18 PM Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, no I get runtime error. <sigh>
>> > On Jun 29, 2018, at 14:09 , Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> > Yes because your ampersand operator is not passing different
>> arguements, it's concatenating the items together so that 10.2.245.6
>> produces the integer 1022456. But 10.22.2.6 produces 102226 which is
>> smaller, but ought to sort higher. Hence the 4 pass sort.
>> > But you got me thinking, what if you did something like:
>> > set the numberformat to "000"
>> > sort lines of tIPList numeric by \
>> > value(item 1 of each +0) & \
>> > value(item 2 of each +0) & \
>> > value(item 3 of each +0) & \
>> > value(item 4 of each)
>> > Bob S
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode