Philosophically, I wouldn't mix and match selection and sorting, but rather handle these as distinct phases. It's simpler, cleaner and you never know what they're going to want next.
Bill > I wrote a program to sort a address list by zipcode. Nice and > straightforward. > > Then it growed. :-) > > I added functionality for it to sort a single list into > multiple versions. To do this, I created a cursor with the > versions in it and skipped through the cursor, sorting once > for each version. > > Only problem is, this doesn't work well if you don't have > versions. :-) > > The solution I came up with involved wrapping all the > accesses to crsrVersion so that they wouldn't be accessed if > they didn't exist. > > a) > IF llMultiVersion > GO 1 IN crsrVersions > ENDIF > > FOR i = 1 TO lnVersionCount > *!* Sort the versions > > IF llMultiVersion > SKIP IN crsrVersions > ENDIF > ENDFOR > > IF llMultiVersion > USE IN crsrVersions > ENDIF > > On one hand, this is good, because it keeps the sort code in > one place. On the other hand, it's kinda fugly. > > Possible solutions: > > b) > IF llMultiVersions > *!* Sort multiple versions > ELSE > *!* Sort one version > ENDIF > > This might be cleanest, but it puts the main point of the > program, the SORT/COPY FOX2X code, in two different places. > > c) > IF NOT llMultiVersions > CREATE CURSOR crsrVersions > INSERT INTO crsrVersions > ENDIF > > *!* Sort multiple versions, possibly for values of multiple > *!* equal to 1. > > This is probably the way I should go, but it involves > creating a cursor which might not be semantically needed. > > So, what do you think? a, b, or c? _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
