> Is it not possible to simply use this formula: > > Color1.Red+Color1.Green*256+Color1.Blue*256?
It's possible to use whatever formula you like, as long as it delivers a single number per color. The question is, what effect will the formula have? The above formula gives the red component of a color only 1/256 as much influence as the green and blue components, which have equal influence to each other. I don't know why you would want to do that. Possibly you meant this instead: Color1.Red+Color1.Green*256+Color1.Blue*256*256 This happens to provide a _unique_ numerical value for each color in RGB space, which is perhaps what you were getting at. But sorting does not depend on a unique value per entity, it depends only on a single value per entity. Would the above numerical value per color provide a useful sorting for your needs? It will sort colors with a blue component to one end, colors with a green component but no blue component in the middle, and colors with no green or blue components to the other end. It's hard to visualize the effect of this since I am not good at imagining hundreds of colors with three degrees of freedom per color simultaneously. If that's what you want, great, but there's no such thing as a "correct" sorting of colors. lj _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
