World: r3wp

And when we get the permissions to do so, we can then

OK, good, that way you will remember to submit a CureCode ticket 
later.

>> a: 0.24.26
== 0.24.26
>> poke a 2 155
== 0.155.26
>> a
== 0.24.26 ; huh?

fixed in R3 though.

>> a: b: 0.24.26
== 0.24.26

>> poke a 2 155

** Script error: poke does not allow tuple! for its value argument

if you consider that fixed, then I do agree with you

nevertheless, the behaviour in R2 looks reasonable too

(taking into account, that tuples are immutable)

re "ask in chat or CC" - I asked in chat, privately, but do not see 
any reaction yet, and I added a comment to CC #1571

also: http://eupat.ffii.org/

sorry, misplaced post

since tuple are not series in R3, then I'd say it's fixed.

tuple aren't immutable in R2 OR R3

>> a: 1.2.34
== 1.2.34
>> a/2: 33
== 33
>> a
== 1.33.34

this works in both R2 and R3

nope, they are

>> a: b: 1.2.3
== 1.2.3
>> a/1: 33
== 33
>> a
== 33.2.3
>> b
== 1.2.3

ok... yeah in that sense.

they aren't series.

tuple aren't immutable in R2 OR R3

 - it is discussed in http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Identity#Expressions_modifying_their_values

Tuples are exactly as mutable as integers in R2 as well as in R3

BrainH asked: Didn't know you could put the /compare index in a block. 
Can you specify more than one index?

Sunanda says: Yes you can:
sort/skip/compare s 4 [1 2 4 3]
== [1 2 8 a 1 2 6 b 1 2 7 c]


That's great but can you do that with a block of blocks of  data....

example: 
s: [
	[1 2 8 a]
	[1 2 6 b] 
	[1 2 7 c]]
]

remove extra ]

use a compare function for that

So nothing as easy as Sunanda's example built into rebol?

To turn Maxim's comment into an example:

   sort/compare s func [a b] [
== [
    [1 2 6 b]
    [1 2 7 c]
    [1 2 8 a]
]
s

Oops that SORT line should be
   sort/compare s func [a b] [return a/3 < b/3]

thanks... I was a bit lazy there  ;-)

so something like this will give me a sort on multi indexes?
sort/compare s func [a b] [return a/4 < b/4 return a2 < b/2]

btw return is never required at the end of a func .. and slows down 
rebol A LOT in tight loops.

amacleod... your example would stop at first compare (you're returning 
right away)

try this instead:

sort/compare s func [a b] [
	either  a/4 = b/4  [
		a2 < b/2
	][
		a/4 < b/4
	]
]

but not exactly sure of results...

For safe stable, sorting return -1, 0, +1 rather than true or false:
   http://www.rebol.com/docs/changes-2-5.html#section-72

I do not know if that is what I want...i'm looking to prioritize 
each compare giving each a "weight"

example" 


sorting a list of first and last names first on last then on first 
in case of same last names

The basic compare function then (assuming you are sorting a block 
of objects) is:

   func [a b] [if a/surname = b/surname [return a/firstname < b/firstname] 
   return a/surname < b/surname]]

so if I'm comparing 5 or 6 fields I would nest to if statements 5 
deep?

Basically, yes.....You may find a neat way of refactoring....Or JOINing 
keyfields so you can do a single compare....but that is the basic 
principle.

thanks all

late but here is an equivalent working example:

names: [
	["zz" "bb"] ["cc" "zz"] ["aa" "aa"]["bb" "ee"]
	["zz" "tt"] ["cc" "aa"] ["aa" "yy"]["bb" "aa"]
]
sort/compare names func [a b][
	either a/1 = b/1 [a/2 < b/2][a/1 < b/1]
]
probe names

== [ ["aa" "aa"] ["aa" "yy"] ["bb" "aa"] ["bb" "ee"] ["cc" "aa"] 
["cc" "zz"]  ["zz" "bb"] ["zz" "tt"] ]

that limits it to comparisons on two fields...right?

yep... as sunanda said, you need to chain the compares.


there might be a way of using ANY/ALL functions too, but it can be 
tricky ... though usually yields less code.

yields = requires

Something like this will sort on all fields
 

sort/compare s func [a b] [for n 1 length? a 1 [if a/:n < b/:n [return 
-1] if a/:n > b/:n [return +1]] return 0]

refining sunanda's example, sorting on selected fields

sort/compare s func [a b] [
	repeat n [2 4] [
		if a/:n < b/:n [return -1] if a/:n > b/:n [return +1]
	] 
	return 0
]


I just indented it to make it a bit easier to break up

note, the order of the fields given is the order in which they are 
weighted

Thanks, Maxim -- that's nice.

I wouldn't have thought of your idea, so I thought *yours* was really 
nifty  :-)

That awsome...thanks guys

I've used 'case statements for multiple levels of sorting, like that

...although I can't seem to find where right now

can you use get-modes over ftp?

try it ..