On Oct 24, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Colin Scarrott wrote:
Good idea, thanks for that, i'll have a play around.
Colin
But nothing prevents you from cheating and sorting a private
copy of the array with leading zeroes... as long as you keep the
two arrays' elements in parallel you should be okay. You can then
hand off the 'real' array back to whatever client code called it.
I probably should have said, "... in sync"; not "... in parallel".
That is, if - in the sort routine, you swap element 2 and 17 (for
example) in the 'test' array, you need to swap them in the real
array, too. This way, when you pass the array back, it'll be in
sorted order even though no comparisons were done on any of its
elements..
The key to this sort of 'optimization' is to determine how many
significant leading zeroes (maximum) you'll ever need; you can then
make a simple method that takes the test string and returns a string
with the leading zeroes in it. You then fill your test array with
this data, keeping your original array safe.
HTH!
On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Colin Scarrott wrote:
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
