This really clears up everything....but then the question I have to ask is why would you have one command (split) create a 1D array and have another command that only works with a 2D array (transpose)?

Would there not be a greater benefit if the split command or another "new" split command support the creation of a 2D array? Arrays are very powerful but if you need to write repeat loops to work with them in one direction you seem to lose a lot of the power.

I would love to hear what others think about this...maybe I'm missing the point?



On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:14 PM, Dar Scott wrote:


On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 08:38 PM, Glen Bojsza wrote:


I thought that the split command actually would put the data into the format that transpose recognizes ...what you have indicated?

Sorry about the cryptic response.


Transpose expects a "2D" array, not an array of rows.

The key of the "2D" array is a pair of numbers, like this: "4,5"

I read this...
I have a field "test"
1       23      33
2       12      67

...as your really wanting this:
put 23 into a[1,1]
put 33 into a[1,2]
put 12 into a[2,1]
put 67 into a[2,2]

That puts the values into a "2D" array.

What you would get if you split the above field, is the same as this:

put 23 & tab & 33 into a[1]
put 12 & tab & 67 into a[2]

Dar Scott


_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Reply via email to