hi Mark if you fill up a field with like a button script like this: on mouseUp pMouseBtnNo put "A,B,C,D" into trandomChar set the numberformat to "#####" put 0 into tCounter repeat 99999 add 1 to tCounter put any item of trandomChar && tCounter & " a longer text to see the difference between short and longn text on the time it takes to reverse the order of a field" & return after tCollector end repeat delete last char of tCollector put tCollector into field 1 end mouseUp
it creates a line of text in my view representative of an average line of text: "D 00001 a longer text to see the difference between short and longn text on the time it takes to reverse the order of a field" and if you compare arrays like (Mark Schonewille) -- on mouseUp pMouseBtnNo put the millisec into tStart put field 1 into temp put reverseList(temp) into temp2 put temp2 into field 1 put the millisec - tStart end mouseUp private function reverseList theListArray split theListArray by cr combine theListArray by cr and tab sort lines of theListArray numeric descending by item 1 of each split theListArray by column return theListArray[2] end reverseList -- it takes for 100.000 time 1800 millisecs on a macBook Pro 2.33 for an adapted Jaques/Jan solution (same field with 100.000 lines, same computer): --- local tCount on mouseUp put the millisec into tStart put the number of lines of field 1 into tCount sort field 1 numeric by mySort() put the millisec - tStart end mouseUp private function mySort subtract 1 from tCount return tCount end mySort --- it takes about 850 millisecs 1800 millisecs versus 850 is a huge amount of time for the user (a lot of gulps, by the way: what is the standard gulp anyway?, I know how to transform the Percentage of the maximum velocity of sheep in a vacuum: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html#velocity , but you would have to submit the gulb as a distinct and defined unit of time :-)))) Allright, I added "private" to the function which is only availabel to rev => 2.8.1. it saves about 50 milliseconds. So the solution proposed by Jaque and Jan is definitely faster and, provided you add numeric, just as correct. regards Bernd Richmond Mathewson wrote: > > Sarah Reichelt wrote: > > "And the winner is......." > > and jolly well done to Jacque! > > HOWEVER, what naive types like me would like to know > are: > > 1. How did you time these routines ? > > For the sake of argument, I hardly had time to take a > gulp of coffee before mine was done: presumably you > don't do timings in gulps, semi-gulps, demi-semi-gulps > and so on. > > 2. Although it is very clever (I, for one, had a bit > of fun having a try) to write a routine that reverses > a list a few demi-semi-gulps faster than another, > until we are all using super computers to find out the > question for 42 (pace Douglas Adams) I wonder why > those few micro-gulps really might matter ? > > sincerely, Richmond Mathewson > > ____________________________________________________________ > > A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life > Cycle. > ____________________________________________________________ > > > __________________________________________________________ > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > A Smarter Inbox http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Reversing-a-list-tp16494644p16505535.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution