Hi Mark et al, The 'sort' command should return the same content, not throw out chunks, that might be better as an extension to the 'filter' command. But your comment about how sort affects the original container made me wonder.
So I took another look at the source for the 'sort' command in cmds.cpp, and it doesn't look that hard to add an 'into' clause. Putting the sorted data into another container is straightforward to add to MCSort::exec (done that for the 'filter' command). The hardest part is untangling the MCSort::parse spaghetti. If I find the time I might take a stab at it… Cheers, Jan Schenkel. ===== Quartam Reports & PDF Library for LiveCode www.quartam.com ===== "As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time." (La Rochefoucauld) -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 1/4/14, Mark Wieder <mwie...@ahsoftware.net> wrote: Subject: Re: There should be a "unique" option on sort . . . To: "How to use LiveCode" <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Date: Saturday, January 4, 2014, 5:02 PM > yes, or to only take the first that matches the sort key if sorting by > other than the full record. I can see it being slightly useful in certain cases, but it leaves me feeling a bit queasy. I think it's unsettling enough that the sort command sorts in place instead of being a function that returns a sorted copy, and of course it's way too late to change that now. So deleting items from a dataset while sorting them seems one more step down that ladder. I do realize that you'd have to specify "unique" explicitly, but still... if it didn't mess with the original data set I'd be all over this. -- -Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
