Joel,
It was your first post that made me realize that my problem was that I had
misunderstood how the key was used. I had just copied Carl's load-data
function without noticing that the key was not part of the
object. Everyone that contributed to this thread helped me understand what
was happening.
Your sharing of expertize is always highly appreciated.
Louis
At 08:17 AM 4/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi, Anton and Louis,
>
>Thanks, Anton, for bypassing my goof!
>
>Anton wrote:
> >
> > Use this instead:
> >
> > find/skip database reduce [key1 key2] 3
> >
> > The skip refinement treats the series as records
> > of fixed number of objects, which is 3 in this case
> > (2 keys and 1 object).
> >
>
>Doh!
>
>You're right, of course! I spoke too hastily when I said there
>would be a need for a loop.
>
>If I had thought more carefully, I would have realized that my
>bias toward *ALWAYS* having a unique key was influencing my
>thinking.
>
>After further thought, I'd ask another design question:
>
>Are the values of CODE and CHKNUM guaranteed to be immutable
>over the life of an object?
>
>If so, then the "concatenated key" approach has a slight edge
>in performance, I believe.
>If not, then the work required to keep the key (or keys, for
>the FIND/SKIP version) up to date.
>
>-jn-
>
>--
>; Joel Neely joeldotneelyatfedexdotcom
>REBOL [] do [ do func [s] [ foreach [a b] s [prin b] ] sort/skip
>do function [s] [t] [ t: "" foreach [a b] s [repend t [b a]] t ] {
>| e s m!zauafBpcvekexEohthjJakwLrngohOqrlryRnsctdtiub} 2 ]
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
>subject, without the quotes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
