Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Clip] Finding Minimum Value in Array

Expand Messages
  • Hugo Paulissen
    OK Don, Sorry Flo, Forget my last post; I see what you mean... Now I *do* remember the padding zero issue! It s getting rusty inside... Hugo
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 2, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      OK Don, Sorry Flo,

      Forget my last post; I see what you mean... Now I *do* remember the padding zero issue! It's getting rusty inside...

      Hugo




      ________________________________
      From: Hugo Paulissen <hugopaulissen@...>
      To: ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, November 2, 2009 4:28:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [Clip] Finding Minimum Value in Array

       
       
      Hi Don,
       
      Quite possible that I just got lucky ;-), but I'm not so sure we need a numeric sort for this. I do not recall the reason for the zero-padding, but it doesn't seem necessary in this case.
       
      In any case: if I add some other values to the array, it appears that the lowest value is returned every single time.
       
      ^!SetArray %Array%=03,8, 329,1,1.25, 7,10.34,4, 9,6,2,5,11, 0.25,0.1, 10000,20, 0.0119,10, 0.012
       
      Hugo
       
       
      >>> 
      Doesn't work Hugo,

      ^!SetListDelimiter ,
      ^!SetArray %Array%=3,8, 329,7,10. 34,4,9,6, 2,5,11
      ^!SetListDelimiter ^%NL%
      ^!SetArray
      %Array%=^$StrSort( "^$StrReplace( ",";"^%NL% ";"^%Array% ";0;0)$"; False;True; False)$
      ^!Info ^%Array1% ^%NL% ^%Array%

      You just got lucky :-)

      We always zero pad because I use your method to zero pad. We need a
      numeric sort

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • flo.gehrke
      ... Hugo, Don, I don t think that Hugo was wrong. There has always been some confusion about this issue (cf message #19038 ff). The trick is the ^%NL% as
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 2, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Paulissen <hugopaulissen@...> wrote:
        >
        > OK Don, Sorry Flo,
        >
        > Forget my last post; I see what you mean... Now I *do* remember the padding zero issue! It's getting rusty inside...
        >
        > Hugo

        Hugo, Don,

        I don't think that Hugo was wrong. There has always been some confusion about this issue (cf message #19038 ff).

        The trick is the ^%NL% as delimiter. With the semicolon as the default delimiter the array won't get sorted:

        ^!SetArray %Array%=9;8;7;6;5
        ^!Info Array unsorted:^P^%Array%
        ^!SetArray %Array%=^$StrSort("^%Array%";0;1;0)$
        ^!Info Sorting failed: ^%Array%
        ^!Info Wrong minimum value: ^%Array1%

        The clip outputs '9' which doesn't meet our intentions. With ^P as delimiter it doesn't work either.

        With ^%NL% (which replaces the comma in Hugo's solution)...

        ^!SetListDelimiter ^%NL%
        ^!SetArray %Array%=9^%NL%8^%NL%7^%NL%6^%NL%5
        ^!Info Array unsorted:^P^%Array%
        ^!SetArray %Array%=^$StrSort("^%Array%";0;1;0)$
        ^!Info Array correctly sorted:^P^%Array%
        ^!Info Minimum value: ^%Array1%

        the array gets sorted and the clip outputs the minimum value in the array. Nevertheless, it's still a normal ANSI sorting of digits and no numeric sorting.

        Regards,
        Flo
      • Don - HtmlFixIt.com
        I am pretty sure you are just picking lucky numbers to use and thus getting lucky :-) I agree that you need the line breaks as delimiter because we are sorting
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 2, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I am pretty sure you are just picking lucky numbers to use and thus
          getting lucky :-)

          I agree that you need the line breaks as delimiter because we are
          sorting lines, not data elements. But it will not do what you wanted,
          give the minimum unless you zero pad. You can however add zero padding,
          sort, strip and output if you wish.

          I mistakenly did not include the correct numbers in my prior example.

          :Mine
          ^!SetListDelimiter ,
          ^!SetArray %Array%=8,329,7,4,9,6,5
          ^!SetListDelimiter ^%NL%
          ^!SetArray
          %Array%=^$StrSort("^$StrReplace(",";"^%NL%";"^%Array%";0;0)$";False;True;False)$
          ^!Info ^%Array1% ^%NL% ^%Array%


          :Flo
          ^!SetListDelimiter ^%NL%
          ^!SetArray %Array%=8^%NL%329^%NL%7^%NL%4^%NL%9^%NL%6^%NL%5
          ^!Info Array unsorted:^P^%Array%
          ^!SetArray %Array%=^$StrSort("^%Array%";0;1;0)$
          ^!Info Array correctly sorted:^P^%Array%
          ^!Info Minimum value: ^%Array1%

          Notice I also used NL in my example because we figured that one out many
          years ago -- look up my username and zero padding ....

          329 comes out on top in the above examples because 3 is the lowest
          number. Hugo and I have done the zero padding bit many times over the
          years as I use his method for it.

          flo.gehrke wrote:
          > --- In ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Paulissen <hugopaulissen@...> wrote:
          >> OK Don, Sorry Flo,
          >>
          >> Forget my last post; I see what you mean... Now I *do* remember the padding zero issue! It's getting rusty inside...
          >>
          >> Hugo
          >
          > Hugo, Don,
          >
          > I don't think that Hugo was wrong. There has always been some confusion about this issue (cf message #19038 ff).
          >
          > The trick is the ^%NL% as delimiter. With the semicolon as the default delimiter the array won't get sorted:
        • flo.gehrke
          ... Don, ... Yes, Don, you are absolutely right. Now it was getting rusty inside for me ;-) I should have known better since I already said: Nevertheless,
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 2, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, "Don - HtmlFixIt.com" <don@...> wrote:
            >
            > I am pretty sure you are just picking lucky numbers to use and thus
            > getting lucky :-)

            Don,

            > 329 comes out on top in the above examples because 3 is the
            > lowest number.

            Yes, Don, you are absolutely right. Now it was "getting rusty inside" for me ;-)

            I should have known better since I already said: "Nevertheless, it's still a normal ANSI sorting of digits and no numeric sorting."

            So a better numeric sorting remains on the wish list. Something like...

            ^$StrSort("Str";Numeric;Ascending;RemoveDuplicates)$

            (as you had in mind before). I hope Eric Fookes will read this...

            Regards,
            Flo
          • Art Kocsis
            I agree that NoteTab needs a numeric sort period, not just in the clip functions but in the editor itself. Under the assumption that the clip sort is a mirror
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 3, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree that NoteTab needs a numeric sort period, not just in the clip
              functions but in the editor itself. Under the assumption that the clip sort
              is a mirror of the editor sort you can easily see the results (and
              fallacies), of all the arrays in this thread. Even zero padding is not an
              answer:

              Copy Hugo's last array to NTB, change all the commas to ^P and sort:
              ^!SetArray %Array%=03,8,329,1,1.25,7,10.34,4,9,6,
              2,5,11,0.25,0.1,10000,20,0.0119,10,0.012
              Notice the "03" is less than "1", "11" is less than 2", and so on.

              And while we're at it, NoteTab also sorely needs a major/minor column sort.
              Jody's clip has never worked for me so I am left with going to Ultra Edit
              for anything other than trivial column one sorts. The lack of column sorts
              is a PITA and an unnecessary waste of time.

              BTW, UE not only does the numeric sorts but preserved the leading zero
              padding characters while correctly sorting the numeric values.

              Art


              At 02-11-2009 12:29, you wrote:
              >--- In <mailto:ntb-clips%40yahoogroups.com>ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, "Don
              >- HtmlFixIt.com" <don@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I am pretty sure you are just picking lucky numbers to use and thus
              > > getting lucky :-)
              >
              >Don,
              >
              > > 329 comes out on top in the above examples because 3 is the
              > > lowest number.
              >
              >Yes, Don, you are absolutely right. Now it was "getting rusty inside" for
              >me ;-)
              >
              >I should have known better since I already said: "Nevertheless, it's still
              >a normal ANSI sorting of digits and no numeric sorting."
              >
              >So a better numeric sorting remains on the wish list. Something like...
              >
              >^$StrSort("Str";Numeric;Ascending;RemoveDuplicates)$
              >
              >(as you had in mind before). I hope Eric Fookes will read this...
              >
              >Regards,
              >Flo

              ----------


              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.47/2478 - Release Date: 11/03/09 07:36:00


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.