I think it should be faster this way, too, although it may not matter. sort will have to rearrange less items after unique has removed some. I don't think unique would work any faster on data that's already sorted, though I could be wrong. Not a big issue for me at the moment.. :)
Anton. > Hi Carl, > > > > 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" ] > > > > Hmmm. Are there cases where unique can change the order, as well as > > stripping out duplicates? > > I don't really know, I haven't tested for it. But even if it is stable in > this version it could perhaps change in later versions and > because the help > for Unique does not suggest otherwise, I figure a bit of defensive > programming is warranted. > > My habit is to think: "if I need it like that - then I should > ensure it is > like that". > > Regards, > Brett. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
