Hi -
If I had a SortedCollection of rectangular solid objects (that just have the ivars height, width, depth), how could I sort it by height, then width, then depth?
So three object:
A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
And then after sorting they'd be in this order:
B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
First sorted by height, then by width, then by depth.
Is there a way to do that using just a #sortBlock:
My only other approach would be to make a Set of the heights, sort that, then #select: a collection for each height, sort that by weight, then for each height make a Set of weights etc...
Thanks
Paul
On 12.04.2010, at 16:13, Paul DeBruicker wrote:
Hi -
If I had a SortedCollection of rectangular solid objects (that just have the ivars height, width, depth), how could I sort it by height, then width, then depth?
So three object:
A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
And then after sorting they'd be in this order:
B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
First sorted by height, then by width, then by depth.
Is there a way to do that using just a #sortBlock:
Sure. Basically your sort block would look like
a height > b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width > b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth > b depth]]]]
- Bert -
On 12.04.2010, at 16:36, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 12.04.2010, at 16:13, Paul DeBruicker wrote:
Hi -
If I had a SortedCollection of rectangular solid objects (that just have the ivars height, width, depth), how could I sort it by height, then width, then depth?
So three object:
A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
And then after sorting they'd be in this order:
B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
First sorted by height, then by width, then by depth.
Is there a way to do that using just a #sortBlock:
Sure. Basically your sort block would look like
a height > b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width > b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth > b depth]]]]
- Bert -
Hmm, indenting it like this makes it more obvious:
a height > b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width > b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth > b depth]]]]
- Bert -
On 4/12/2010 7:48 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Hmm, indenting it like this makes it more obvious:
a height> b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width> b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth> b depth]]]]
Personally, I write multi-level sort blocks like here:
a height = b height ifTrue:[a width = b width ifTrue:[a depth >= b depth]] ifFalse:[a width >= b width] ifFalse:[a height >= b height]
Cheers, - Andreas
I add a <= to
then you can write:
[ :a :b | { a width. a depth. } <= { b width. b depth } ]
regards
Keith
On 12 Apr 2010, at 17:52, Andreas Raab wrote:
On 4/12/2010 7:48 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Hmm, indenting it like this makes it more obvious:
a height> b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width> b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth> b depth]]]]
Personally, I write multi-level sort blocks like here:
a height = b height ifTrue:[a width = b width ifTrue:[a depth >= b depth]] ifFalse:[a width >= b width] ifFalse:[a height >= b height]
Cheers,
- Andreas
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, keith keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: keith keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [Newbies] Re: How to sort a SortedCollection like you can sort a table in Excel? To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions about Squeak." beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 4:53 PM I add a <= to
then you can write:
[ :a :b | { a width. a depth. } <= { b width. b depth } ]
regards
Keith
For the win!
Cool, Keith.
It's easy to forget how smart collection are.
Cheers, --Jer
On 12 Apr 2010, at 17:52, Andreas Raab wrote:
On 4/12/2010 7:48 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Hmm, indenting it like this makes it more
obvious:
a height> b height or:
[
a height = b height and: [ a
width> b width or: [
a width = b
width and: [
a depth> b depth]]]]
Personally, I write multi-level sort blocks like
here:
a height = b height ifTrue:[a width
= b width
ifTrue:[a depth >= b depth]]
ifFalse:[a width >= b width]
ifFalse:[a
height >= b height]
Cheers, - Andreas _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Hi Bert, Hi DeBruicker a slight tweak to Bert's method
a height = b height ifFalse: [ a height < b height ] ifTrue: [ a width = b width ifFalse: [ a width < b width ] ifTrue: [ a depth <= b depth ] ] .
Basically if primary sorts values are unequal sort by primary values else sort by secondry values etc. This basicly recusive procedure will work for any number of sort levels.
Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
From: Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de Subject: Re: [Newbies] How to sort a SortedCollection like you can sort a table in Excel? To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions about Squeak." beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 10:36 AM On 12.04.2010, at 16:13, Paul DeBruicker wrote:
Hi -
If I had a SortedCollection of rectangular solid
objects (that just have
the ivars height, width, depth), how could I sort it
by height, then
width, then depth?
So three object:
A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
And then after sorting they'd be in this order:
B) h: 60, w: 2, d: 14 A) h: 10, w: 5, d: 3 C) h: 10, w: 3, d: 27
First sorted by height, then by width, then by
depth.
Is there a way to do that using just a
#sortBlock:
Sure. Basically your sort block would look like
a height > b height or: [ a height = b height and: [ a width > b width or: [ a width = b width and: [ a depth > b depth]]]]
- Bert -
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
On 13 Apr 2010, at 01:03, Jerome Peace wrote:
Hi Bert, Hi DeBruicker a slight tweak to Bert's method
a height = b height ifFalse: [ a height < b height ] ifTrue: [ a width = b width ifFalse: [ a width < b width ] ifTrue: [ a depth <= b depth ] ] .
Basically if primary sorts values are unequal sort by primary values else sort by secondry values etc. This basicly recusive procedure will work for any number of sort levels.
Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
Hi Jerome,
If you look at my implementation you will probably hate it! For practical purposes, in my <= implementation for SequencableCollection I also handles nil <= anything else, and false <= true.
cheers
Keith
HI Keith,
I had thought you were pointing to something already implemented in collection. If it were it is an nice elegant language form.
I don't have an opinion yet about your generalized implementation. In what context do you use it?
In any event your form would not be useful in all contexts. The one Andreas and I use works better when you want to cut off a comparison before evaluating the secondary or tertiary messages.
In the context of the stated problem it would probably work fine.
Squeak has a deficiency. It can't express properly the concept of plurals. Ideally I should have message selectors that could work with one or more of a certain type of object. With sqeuak you can't quite get thar from heyah.
Anyway you showed an interesting alternative.
Cheers --Jer
--- On Tue, 4/13/10, keith keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: keith keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [Newbies] How to sort a SortedCollection like you can sort a table in Excel? To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions about Squeak." beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 9:11 AM
On 13 Apr 2010, at 01:03, Jerome Peace wrote:
Hi Bert, Hi DeBruicker a slight tweak to Bert's method
a height = b height ifFalse: [ a height < b height ] ifTrue: [ a width = b width ifFalse: [ a width < b width ] ifTrue: [ a depth <= b depth ] ] .
Basically if primary sorts values are unequal sort by
primary values else sort by secondry values etc. This basicly recusive procedure will work for any number of sort levels.
Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
Hi Jerome,
If you look at my implementation you will probably hate it! For practical purposes, in my <= implementation for SequencableCollection I also handles nil <= anything else, and false <= true.
cheers
Keith _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Bert Freudenberg -
Jerome Peace -
keith -
Paul DeBruicker