Brett and Ashley, Thanks. I have learned something new. For some reason I thought that the order had to be:
unique sort x but a little experimentation proves you right. My misconception probably stems from the fact that I once wrote a c function similar to unique that wouldn't work unless the input was sorted first. By the way, everybody, it is good to be back on my favorite list after a fire (actually burned our cable in two) and other problems cut me off for about 2 months. I have received more help on this list than on any other list I have been on. The regulars on this list are not only brilliant, but also patient and quick to help those in need (often me :>)). Thanks to you all! Louis At 11:45 AM 7/24/2002 +1000, you wrote: > >If you need your series sorted, it is probably better to sort after the > >Unique. This way you don't need to hope that Unique keeps the sorting > >intact. > > > > sort unique [ "a" "b" "b" "c" "d" "e" "e" ] > > > >Regards, > >Brett. > >Also, at least conceptually, less for sort to do so more efficient . . . > >Regards, > > Ashley > >-- >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.
