Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #146566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-10-04 13:00 -0400 |
| Last post | 2019-10-15 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 483 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 13:00 -0400
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-04 17:06 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 21:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 19:24 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 13:08 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-04 21:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 01:21 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 01:23 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 20:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 20:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 13:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 14:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 09:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 19:29 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 18:13 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 21:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-05 13:22 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 21:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 00:17 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 15:54 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 08:07 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 17:39 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 12:52 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 21:26 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 01:37 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 01:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 02:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 09:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-07 00:39 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 10:59 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 13:19 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 12:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 13:57 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 15:01 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 17:42 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 19:33 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 18:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 02:27 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 17:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 08:53 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 12:28 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-08 11:47 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:02 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 00:50 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 03:03 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 01:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 10:31 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 11:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 14:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 14:41 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 16:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 18:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 17:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 01:37 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-10 14:33 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 12:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-10 16:00 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 23:43 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 14:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:04 +0300
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 22:17 +0000
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 15:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 12:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 00:53 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 00:50 +0100
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-12 03:42 +0800
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 22:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-14 16:08 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 19:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 07:40 +1300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 20:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 08:33 +1300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 20:52 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 23:42 +0000
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 16:40 +1300
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 05:10 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 12:33 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 14:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 15:35 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 16:15 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 20:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 20:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 10:40 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 20:31 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-09 12:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 22:21 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-09 21:31 +0000
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-09 15:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 00:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 10:40 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 15:58 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:37 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 19:56 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 00:56 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 11:04 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:33 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 10:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-18 05:56 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 06:10 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 15:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-18 09:41 -0400
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 07:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 15:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-18 13:36 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 15:17 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 16:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 08:49 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 17:56 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 09:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 19:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 23:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 00:49 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 01:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 11:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 03:56 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 13:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-19 08:44 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 07:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 18:01 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 20:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 23:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-20 00:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 10:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 14:39 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 06:11 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:36 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 14:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 16:47 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 19:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-19 13:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 13:40 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-19 13:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:04 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 06:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:40 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 07:29 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 16:49 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 15:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 21:26 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 23:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 23:08 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-21 00:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:33 +0000
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:57 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 00:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 23:48 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 11:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 12:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:48 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-21 01:20 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-22 18:00 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-22 19:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 21:27 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 14:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 23:34 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 16:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 19:15 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 19:01 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 13:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 11:25 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:07 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 16:58 +0000
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 19:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-15 03:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 12:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 04:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-15 14:30 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-18 05:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 00:31 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 04:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 10:30 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 02:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 12:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 13:23 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-13 13:30 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-14 16:13 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 02:00 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 10:33 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 01:01 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 11:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 12:18 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 16:15 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 21:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 20:36 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 17:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-11 03:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 22:36 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 12:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 00:26 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 00:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:18 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 12:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 15:00 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 15:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 19:13 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 19:04 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 20:13 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 01:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 22:52 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-12 23:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 10:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 16:42 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 18:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 19:50 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-14 12:27 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-15 10:26 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2019-10-14 21:02 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 01:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 01:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 12:16 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 10:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:16 +0300
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 03:34 -0700
Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 03:54 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 13:36 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-14 09:49 -0400
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 07:15 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 14:55 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 08:10 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 16:21 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-10-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 14:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-14 16:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-14 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 00:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 05:30 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 16:05 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 07:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 14:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 19:28 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:17 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 00:26 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 11:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 04:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-16 18:17 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-17 18:01 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 00:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-19 06:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-11-08 18:38 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 22:03 -0800
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 18:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 00:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 23:44 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 13:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-13 19:05 -0400
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 13:16 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-13 00:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 14:18 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 23:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 23:52 -0400
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-15 11:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 18:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 20:31 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 20:34 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-15 22:05 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-16 10:11 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-16 12:42 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-16 04:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 05:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-18 10:18 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 05:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 05:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-14 15:32 +0000
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 23:59 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 06:08 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 01:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-11 07:53 -0400
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-11 11:20 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:16 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-11 14:43 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-12 07:46 +0000
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 09:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:29 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 12:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 13:38 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 12:17 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 20:20 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 20:39 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 07:38 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-15 07:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 10:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-15 12:24 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 04:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-16 14:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-16 19:12 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-16 19:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:22 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:02 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 17:01 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 12:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 12:18 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 14:11 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 15:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 17:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 20:52 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 00:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-07 15:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 02:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 10:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 11:23 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 09:59 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 11:39 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 14:05 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 15:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:34 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 16:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 18:31 +0300
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 16:39 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 19:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 18:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 22:16 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 23:58 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 22:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:39 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:12 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 19:49 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:29 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 17:56 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 22:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 00:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 13:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 14:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 15:53 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-09 14:39 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 15:58 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 01:00 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 12:01 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 20:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:17 +0300
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 07:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 14:53 +0300
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 10:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 09:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 09:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-06 19:57 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 06:38 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 13:06 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 05:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:04 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-06 18:23 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:41 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 12:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-07 04:00 +0800
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 09:46 +0200
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 22:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 12:24 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-08 09:28 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 23:49 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-08 18:18 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 14:36 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 15:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 05:54 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 16:01 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 06:31 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:30 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 10:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 06:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 02:46 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 00:19 -0400
Re: Sort char array Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2019-10-04 22:26 -0700
Re: OT Re: Sort char array Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-10-05 06:33 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 16:46 +0200
Re: Sort char array "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-05 16:54 +0200
Re: Sort char array "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-05 17:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 11:34 -0400
Re: Sort char array Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-10-05 15:43 +0000
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-05 17:29 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-10-06 09:58 +0000
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 03:11 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 03:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 16:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 07:28 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-08 18:31 +0800
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 14:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-08 22:41 +0800
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 13:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 14:59 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:11 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:15 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:20 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:35 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-06 13:04 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 08:44 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 18:01 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 09:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 19:21 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 04:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 16:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 19:11 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 21:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 00:43 +0300
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-07 15:51 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 01:48 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-07 00:42 -0400
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 16:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 20:06 -0400
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 01:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 20:12 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 01:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 22:02 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 03:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-09 01:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 00:52 +0300
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:20 +0300
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-08 18:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:07 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:29 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 09:43 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 09:37 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:22 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 11:19 -0700
Page 24 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 15:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qng50g$p8s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146693 |
On 10/7/19 11:45 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> The worst case occurs when the data are in reverse order. This
>>> algorithm will do n*(n-1) comparisons and n*(n-1)/2 swaps ...
>>
>> No, bubblesort is always N*(N-1)/2 comparisons and swaps maximally.
>> Look at the implementation in the Wikipedia; it's a bit different
>> than yours.
>
> No, it's the same as the first algorithm on the page. If you can see a
> difference, please point it out.
>
For Bonita's convenience:
Wikipedia:
> procedure bubbleSort(A : list of sortable items )
> n = length(A)
> repeat
> swapped = false
> for i = 1 to n-1 inclusive do
> /* if this pair is out of order */
> if A[i-1] > A[i] then
> /* swap them and remember something changed */
> swap( A[i-1], A[i] )
> swapped = true
> end if
> end for
> until not swapped
> end procedure
Ben:
> void bsort(int n, T A[])
> {
> bool swapped;
> do {
> swapped = false;
> for (int i = 1; i < n; i++)
> if (out_of_order(A[i-1], A[i])) {
> swap(&A[i-1], &A[i]);
> swapped = true;
> }
> } while (swapped);
> }
bubbleSort() uses "length(A)" to initialize n, whereas bort() take n as
an argument. In a language like C which provides no exact equivalent of
length(), that seems a reasonable thing to do.
Wikipedia uses A[i-1]>A[i]; Ben's version generalizes to allow for a
function that might perform a more complicated comparison algorithm
named out_of_order().
Bonita: are either of those changes relevant to your comment? I wouldn't
think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 01:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86y2xu8ftk.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #146648 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com writes: > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:25:12 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > >>> Correct. The algorithm is not similar to bublesort. >> >> The algorithm has N^2 complexity whereas bubblesort >> has a worst-case of N^2/2 complexity. > > Wrong. > Plain (non-osculating) bubblesort's worst-case == N^2 comparisons. > Or, may be (N-1)^2, if one wants to win an argument. I think you mean non-oscillating. AFAIK there are no amorous bubblesorts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 00:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qnefng$afu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146566 |
On 10/4/19 1:00 PM, DFS wrote:
> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
> 2 char *temp;
> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
> 6 temp = x[i];
> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
> 8 x[j] = temp;
> 9 }
> 10 }
> 11 }
> 12 }
>
>
> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
> elements.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
What you're doing wrong is using a very poor sorting algorithm. See
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithms>
for a good summary of the available alternatives. Choose a better one
(which would not be difficult).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6264b10d-109a-498d-86d5-791426100d0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #146566 |
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
> 2 char *temp;
> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
> 6 temp = x[i];
> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
> 8 x[j] = temp;
> 9 }
> 10 }
> 11 }
> 12 }
>
>
> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
> elements.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it slightly incorrectly,
such that you're executing the inner loop over the entire array again, not just the unsorted
portion. That's what makes it slow.
You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average case) - you write
your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0, or 1 for less than, equal, or greater
than, respectively:
int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
{
return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
}
then call qsort() as
qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
You should see a *substantial* improvement in sorting time.
For giggles, I wrote up a little program that demonstrates different sorting algorithms
(on doubles, not strings). I wrote out the quicksort algorithm, rather than relying
on qsort. Here are the results using bubble sort and quicksort on the same data set of
50000 randomly generated values:
jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -B -n 50000 -r
elements: 50000 comparisons: 1250024999 swaps: 623714630
runtime: 11057325 clocks (11.057325 secs) max recur: 0
jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -Q -n 50000 -r
elements: 50000 comparisons: 1232968 swaps: 183332
runtime: 10972 clocks (0.010972 secs) max recur: 41
You'll notice that a quicksort performs far fewer comparisons and swaps than a bubble
sort, which is what makes it faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RpQmF.10796$5X.3044@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #146713 |
On 10/7/2019 7:05 PM, John Bode wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
>> 2 char *temp;
>> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
>> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
>> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
>> 6 temp = x[i];
>> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
>> 8 x[j] = temp;
>> 9 }
>> 10 }
>> 11 }
>> 12 }
>>
>>
>> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
>> elements.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong?
>
> You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it slightly incorrectly,
> such that you're executing the inner loop over the entire array again, not just the unsorted
> portion. That's what makes it slow.
>
> You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average case) - you write
> your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0, or 1 for less than, equal, or greater
> than, respectively:
>
> int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
> {
> return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
> }
>
> then call qsort() as
>
> qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
>
> You should see a *substantial* improvement in sorting time.
>
> For giggles, I wrote up a little program that demonstrates different sorting algorithms
> (on doubles, not strings). I wrote out the quicksort algorithm, rather than relying
> on qsort. Here are the results using bubble sort and quicksort on the same data set of
> 50000 randomly generated values:
>
> jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -B -n 50000 -r
> elements: 50000 comparisons: 1250024999 swaps: 623714630
> runtime: 11057325 clocks (11.057325 secs) max recur: 0
>
> jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -Q -n 50000 -r
> elements: 50000 comparisons: 1232968 swaps: 183332
> runtime: 10972 clocks (0.010972 secs) max recur: 41
>
> You'll notice that a quicksort performs far fewer comparisons and swaps than a bubble
> sort, which is what makes it faster.
Nice. Thanks.
Yesterday I went back to my original bubblesort and fixed it and the
sort time dropped by a third.
Did you write out the quicksort algo from pseudocode, or copy it from ie
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/quick-sort/
Later tonight I'm going to cut and paste the code for merge-sort, and
implement it in my shiny new program.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/merge-sort/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19b08ecc-203b-4438-a900-5071ad30184a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #146717 |
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:06:19 PM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> On 10/7/2019 7:05 PM, John Bode wrote:
> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> >> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
> >> 2 char *temp;
> >> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
> >> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
> >> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
> >> 6 temp = x[i];
> >> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
> >> 8 x[j] = temp;
> >> 9 }
> >> 10 }
> >> 11 }
> >> 12 }
> >>
> >>
> >> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
> >> elements.
> >>
> >> What am I doing wrong?
> >
> > You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it slightly incorrectly,
> > such that you're executing the inner loop over the entire array again, not just the unsorted
> > portion. That's what makes it slow.
> >
> > You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average case) - you write
> > your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0, or 1 for less than, equal, or greater
> > than, respectively:
> >
> > int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
> > {
> > return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
> > }
> >
> > then call qsort() as
> >
> > qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
> >
> > You should see a *substantial* improvement in sorting time.
> >
> > For giggles, I wrote up a little program that demonstrates different sorting algorithms
> > (on doubles, not strings). I wrote out the quicksort algorithm, rather than relying
> > on qsort. Here are the results using bubble sort and quicksort on the same data set of
> > 50000 randomly generated values:
> >
> > jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -B -n 50000 -r
> > elements: 50000 comparisons: 1250024999 swaps: 623714630
> > runtime: 11057325 clocks (11.057325 secs) max recur: 0
> >
> > jbode:sorts john.bode$ ./quick -Q -n 50000 -r
> > elements: 50000 comparisons: 1232968 swaps: 183332
> > runtime: 10972 clocks (0.010972 secs) max recur: 41
> >
> > You'll notice that a quicksort performs far fewer comparisons and swaps than a bubble
> > sort, which is what makes it faster.
>
>
> Nice. Thanks.
>
> Yesterday I went back to my original bubblesort and fixed it and the
> sort time dropped by a third.
>
> Did you write out the quicksort algo from pseudocode, or copy it from ie
> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/quick-sort/
>
I don't remember where I cribbed the algorithm from originally, probably Wikipedia or
Sedgewick. Originally wrote it so the partitioning function was passed as a callback,
but none of the other partition strategies I tried worked very well, and it meant all the
other sorting routines were taking a useless additional argument (I use a function pointer
in main() and set it to the right sorting routine based on the command line option, so
all the sorting functions had to follow the same prototype).
Currently, I still have the partitioning code as a separate function (using the original
Hoare partitioning method), but the call is semi-hardcoded:
/**
* Standard Hoare partitioning function for quicksort
*/
size_t hoare( double * const x, size_t lo, size_t hi )
{
long int i = lo - 1, j = hi + 1;
double pivot = x[lo];
for( ;; )
{
do { i++; } while ( cmp( x[i], pivot ) < 0 );
do { j--; } while ( cmp( x[j], pivot ) > 0 );
if ( i >= j )
break;
swap( &x[i], &x[j] );
}
return j;
}
/**
* Quicksort.
*/
void myqsort( double * const x, size_t lo, size_t hi )
{
if ( ((hi - lo) + 1) < 2 )
return;
size_t (*pfunc)( double * const, size_t, size_t ) = hoare;
gsortlevel++;
if ( gsortlevel > grecdepth )
grecdepth++;
size_t part = pfunc( x, lo, hi );
if ( part < hi )
{
myqsort( x, lo, part );
myqsort( x, part + 1, hi );
}
gsortlevel--;
}
gsortlevel and grecdepth are just there to keep track of how deep the recursion goes.
>
> Later tonight I'm going to cut and paste the code for merge-sort, and
> implement it in my shiny new program.
> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/merge-sort/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 01:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sgo4jdxq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #146713 |
John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
>> 2 char *temp;
>> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
>> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
>> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
>> 6 temp = x[i];
>> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
>> 8 x[j] = temp;
>> 9 }
>> 10 }
>> 11 }
>> 12 }
>>
>>
>> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
>> elements.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong?
>
> You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
> slightly incorrectly,
It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
(twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
> such that you're executing the inner loop over
> the entire array again, not just the unsorted portion. That's what
> makes it slow.
Sure, but even testing every pair only once is slow. Bubble sort has a
way to make the sort faster in some situations.
> You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average
> case) - you write your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0,
> or 1 for less than, equal, or greater than, respectively:
It only needs to return a result less than zero, equal to zero or
greater than zero, which is good because that's what the str*cmp
functions return.
> int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
> {
> return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
> }
You need
return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
(though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
> then call qsort() as
>
> qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
<cut>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rvQmF.10798$5X.7212@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #146718 |
On 10/7/2019 8:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote (to John Bode
<jfbode1029@gmail.com>):
> You need
>
> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>
> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
I just use:
int comparechar(char** s, char** t){
return stricmp(*s, *t);
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 01:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h84kjcac.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #146719 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
> On 10/7/2019 8:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote (to John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com>):
>> You need
>>
>> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>>
>> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
>
> I just use:
>
> int comparechar(char** s, char** t){
> return stricmp(*s, *t);
> }
And you don't mind that this function has the wrong type?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 22:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a7SmF.76466$LA2.8257@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #146721 |
On 10/7/2019 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/7/2019 8:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote (to John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com>):
>
>>> You need
>>>
>>> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>>>
>>> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
>>
>> I just use:
>>
>> int comparechar(char** s, char** t){
>> return stricmp(*s, *t);
>> }
>
> And you don't mind that this function has the wrong type?
What wrong type?
int stricmp(const char *string1, const char *string2);
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/ssw_ibm_i_71/rtref/stricmp.htm
And from the string.h file in tcc:
"This file is part of the w64 mingw-runtime package."
_CRTIMP int __cdecl _stricmp(const char *_Str1,const char *_Str2);
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 03:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87blusj7o3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #146722 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
> On 10/7/2019 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2019 8:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote (to John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>> You need
>>>>
>>>> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>>>>
>>>> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
>>>
>>> I just use:
>>>
>>> int comparechar(char** s, char** t){
>>> return stricmp(*s, *t);
>>> }
>>
>> And you don't mind that this function has the wrong type?
>
> What wrong type?
The wrong type to pass to qsort. That was the context of the post you
were replying to.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 01:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h84ihhqw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #146718 |
John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>> >> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
>> >> 2 char *temp;
>> >> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
>> >> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
>> >> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
>> >> 6 temp = x[i];
>> >> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
>> >> 8 x[j] = temp;
>> >> 9 }
>> >> 10 }
>> >> 11 }
>> >> 12 }
>> >>
>> >> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
>> >> elements.
>> >>
>> >> What am I doing wrong?
>> >
>> > You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
>> > slightly incorrectly,
>>
>> It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
>> had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
>> (twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
>>
>
> As I said, it's a bubble sort that's been implemented slightly
> incorrectly. It would be correct if j started from i instead of 0.
I don't agree, but does it really matter? I don't think there is any
misunderstanding between us that needs to be cleared up.
>> > such that you're executing the inner loop over
>> > the entire array again, not just the unsorted portion. That's what
>> > makes it slow.
>>
>> Sure, but even testing every pair only once is slow. Bubble sort has a
>> way to make the sort faster in some situations.
>>
>> > You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average
>> > case) - you write your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0,
>> > or 1 for less than, equal, or greater than, respectively:
>>
>> It only needs to return a result less than zero, equal to zero or
>> greater than zero, which is good because that's what the str*cmp
>> functions return.
>>
>> > int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
>> > {
>> > return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
>> > }
>>
>> You need
>>
>> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>
> Eh? x is an array of char *, not char ** - you don't need the extra
> dereference.
Yes you do (for qsort, which was the context). qsort passes a pointer
to the elements that need to be compared.
> And strcasecmp's prototype is int strcasecmp( const char *s1, const
> char *s2 ) - the *pointers* are not declared const, only what they
> point to
Yes, I know. But a char * can be passed to a function that expects a
const char * (it's done all the time). As I went on to say, you can
/add/ another const in there but there's no good reason I can see to do
that.
There /is/ a reason to have the const I /did/ put in. Without it, you are
"casting away const" and will very likely get a warning about that. The
form I gave is, to my mind, the simplest cast that does not do anything
untoward.
>> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
Maybe I should have said that you can have const in any, or none, of the
usual places:
*(char **)lhs
*(char *const *)lhs
*(const char **)lhs
*(const char *const *)lhs
all work, but only the second and fourth avoid casting away const from
lhs. The extra const in the forth serves no purpose in my opinion and
the third form is particularly odd.
>> > then call qsort() as
>> >
>> > qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <498b8b0d-2e42-4391-b3c3-1fa74c9743b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #146728 |
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:42:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> >> >> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
> >> >> 2 char *temp;
> >> >> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
> >> >> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
> >> >> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
> >> >> 6 temp = x[i];
> >> >> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
> >> >> 8 x[j] = temp;
> >> >> 9 }
> >> >> 10 }
> >> >> 11 }
> >> >> 12 }
> >> >>
> >> >> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
> >> >> elements.
> >> >>
> >> >> What am I doing wrong?
> >> >
> >> > You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
> >> > slightly incorrectly,
> >>
> >> It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
> >> had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
> >> (twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
> >>
> >
> > As I said, it's a bubble sort that's been implemented slightly
> > incorrectly. It would be correct if j started from i instead of 0.
>
> I don't agree, but does it really matter? I don't think there is any
> misunderstanding between us that needs to be cleared up.
>
> >> > such that you're executing the inner loop over
> >> > the entire array again, not just the unsorted portion. That's what
> >> > makes it slow.
> >>
> >> Sure, but even testing every pair only once is slow. Bubble sort has a
> >> way to make the sort faster in some situations.
> >>
> >> > You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average
> >> > case) - you write your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0,
> >> > or 1 for less than, equal, or greater than, respectively:
> >>
> >> It only needs to return a result less than zero, equal to zero or
> >> greater than zero, which is good because that's what the str*cmp
> >> functions return.
> >>
> >> > int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
> >> > {
> >> > return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
> >> > }
> >>
> >> You need
> >>
> >> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
> >
> > Eh? x is an array of char *, not char ** - you don't need the extra
> > dereference.
>
> Yes you do (for qsort, which was the context). qsort passes a pointer
> to the elements that need to be compared.
>
Goddammit. I knew that. This is what I get for commenting while working on a patch
for problem A while in the middle of a conference call for problem B and ignoring emails
and slacks on problem C. And I wasn't even able to get to problem D, which has been
festering for a week now, but it's not impacting so it loses.
Just ignore everything I've posted in this thread. For some reason I decided to be
an idiot in public yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-10 00:52 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191010005224.58e233dbedefb55a1a8faa69@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #146813 |
John Bode: > This is what I get for commenting while working on a patch > for problem A while in the middle of a conference call for > problem B and ignoring emails and slacks on problem C. > And I wasn't even able to get to problem D, which has been > festering for a week now, but it's not impacting so it > loses. My interrupt stack overflows even sooner... -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19cbac1e-175a-43b9-b2be-98794417d4a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #146718 |
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> >> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
> >> 2 char *temp;
> >> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
> >> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
> >> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
> >> 6 temp = x[i];
> >> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
> >> 8 x[j] = temp;
> >> 9 }
> >> 10 }
> >> 11 }
> >> 12 }
> >>
> >>
> >> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
> >> elements.
> >>
> >> What am I doing wrong?
> >
> > You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
> > slightly incorrectly,
>
> It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
> had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
> (twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
>
As I said, it's a bubble sort that's been implemented slightly incorrectly. It would be
correct if j started from i instead of 0.
> > such that you're executing the inner loop over
> > the entire array again, not just the unsorted portion. That's what
> > makes it slow.
>
> Sure, but even testing every pair only once is slow. Bubble sort has a
> way to make the sort faster in some situations.
>
> > You could use the standard qsort library function ( O(n lg n) average
> > case) - you write your own comparison function which returns a -1, 0,
> > or 1 for less than, equal, or greater than, respectively:
>
> It only needs to return a result less than zero, equal to zero or
> greater than zero, which is good because that's what the str*cmp
> functions return.
>
> > int mystrcmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
> > {
> > return strcasecmp( (const char *) lhs, (const char *) rhs );
> > }
>
> You need
>
> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>
Eh? x is an array of char *, not char ** - you don't need the extra dereference. And
strcasecmp's prototype is int strcasecmp( const char *s1, const char *s2 ) - the *pointers*
are not declared const, only what they point to.
> (though you can have more consts in there if you fancy it!)
>
> > then call qsort() as
> >
> > qsort( x, n, sizeof x[n], mystrcmp );
>
> <cut>
> --
> Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 00:20 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191009002059.dd9007a5198c549c35a678df@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #146751 |
John Bode to Ben Bacarisse:
> > return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs );
>
> Eh? x is an array of char *, not char ** - you don't need
> the extra dereference. And strcasecmp's prototype is int
> strcasecmp( const char *s1, const char *s2 ) - the
> *pointers* are not declared const, only what they point
> to.
If I remember aright, `const' qualifiers before argument
identifiers are discarded in function declarations because
they bear no information about the external behaviour of the
function: it may or may not change the value of the
argument, but the caller can rest assured that the actual
variable passed will not be changed after the call.
The following declarations are therefore equivalent:
void f( const int * const b );
void f( const int * b );
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-08 18:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qnj3o7$9t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146775 |
On 10/8/19 5:20 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > John Bode to Ben Bacarisse: > >>> return strcasecmp( *(char *const *)lhs, *(char *const *)rhs ); >> >> Eh? x is an array of char *, not char ** - you don't need >> the extra dereference. And strcasecmp's prototype is int >> strcasecmp( const char *s1, const char *s2 ) - the >> *pointers* are not declared const, only what they point >> to. > > If I remember aright, `const' qualifiers before argument > identifiers are discarded in function declarations because > they bear no information about the external behaviour of the > function: it may or may not change the value of the > argument, but the caller can rest assured that the actual > variable passed will not be changed after the call. > > The following declarations are therefore equivalent: > > void f( const int * const b ); > void f( const int * b ); Correct: "(In the determination of type compatibility and of a composite type, ... each parameter declared with qualified type is taken as having the unqualified version of its declared type." (6.7.6.3p15) However, it's only qualifiers on the parameter itself that are ignored for the purposes of type compatibility and composite type. If the parameter is a pointer, qualifiers that apply to the thing that it points at are NOT ignored. Give it a try: void f( const int * const b ); void (*g)( int * const b ) = f; You should get a diagnostic indicating that f is incompatible with g.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 02:07 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191009020749.1b51c893568b47e4407308e9@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #146781 |
James Kuyper to Anton Shepelev: > > If I remember aright, `const' qualifiers before argument > > identifiers are discarded in function declarations > > because they bear no information about the external > > behaviour of the function: it may or may not change the > > value of the argument, but the caller can rest assured > > that the actual variable passed will not be changed > > after the call. > > > > void f( const int * const b ); > > void f( const int * b ); > [...] > However, it's only qualifiers on the parameter itself that > are ignored for the purposes of type compatibility and > composite type. If the parameter is a pointer, qualifiers > that apply to the thing that it points at are NOT ignored. > Give it a try: That is why I wrote specifically "`const' qualifiers before argument identifiers" and kept the first `const' in the example. -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 02:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86h84i8dy3.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #146751 |
John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
>>>> 2 char *temp;
>>>> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
>>>> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
>>>> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
>>>> 6 temp = x[i];
>>>> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
>>>> 8 x[j] = temp;
>>>> 9 }
>>>> 10 }
>>>> 11 }
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
>>>> elements.
>>>>
>>>> What am I doing wrong?
>>>
>>> You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
>>> slightly incorrectly,
>>
>> It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
>> had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
>> (twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
>
> As I said, it's a bubble sort that's been implemented slightly
> incorrectly. It would be correct if j started from i instead of 0.
Try coding that and see if it gives the desired behavior.
(Hint: it doesn't.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-09 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864l0h98fd.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #146793 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>> John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:39 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1 void psort(int n,char *x[]) {
>>>>> 2 char *temp;
>>>>> 3 for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
>>>>> 4 for(j=0;j<n;j++) {
>>>>> 5 if(strcasecmp(x[j],x[i])>0) {
>>>>> 6 temp = x[i];
>>>>> 7 x[i] = x[j]);
>>>>> 8 x[j] = temp;
>>>>> 9 }
>>>>> 10 }
>>>>> 11 }
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This works, but is very slow. Like 6 seconds to sort an array of 10,000
>>>>> elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> What am I doing wrong?
>>>>
>>>> You're using a bubble sort (which is O(n^2)) and you've implemented it
>>>> slightly incorrectly,
>>>
>>> It's not bubble sort at all. (I thought it was at first, but I simply
>>> had not looked properly.) It tests every possible pair of values
>>> (twice!) and swaps them if they are out of order.
>>
>> As I said, it's a bubble sort that's been implemented slightly
>> incorrectly. It would be correct if j started from i instead of 0.
>
> Try coding that and see if it gives the desired behavior.
> (Hint: it doesn't.)
Sorry, my bad. The description and code is so awful I got
confused about what it wasn't doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web