Hi there, I'm working with a list of items that contain decimal-based index numbers. I'm sorry I don't know the term for these kinds of numbers, and I'm having trouble finding out how to sort them properly. To wit: 1.1 1.10 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 When the index numbers are float or strings, they sort like this. But I want "1.10" to be the last number. Any idea how to put these guys in the right order? Thanks! Aaron.

on 2009-03-28 03:22

on 2009-03-28 03:35

On Mar 27, 9:18 pm, Aaron Vegh <aa...@vegh.ca> wrote: > When the index numbers are float or strings, they sort like this. But I > want "1.10" to be the last number. Any idea how to put these guys in the > right order? $ irb >> nums = ['1.1', '1.2', '1.10', '1.9'] => ["1.1", "1.2", "1.10", "1.9"] >> nums.sort => ["1.1", "1.10", "1.2", "1.9"] >> nums.collect { |n| n.split('.').collect { |i| i.to_i } }.sort.collect { |n| n.join('.') } => ["1.1", "1.2", "1.9", "1.10"]

on 2009-03-28 03:50

Aaron Vegh <aaron@vegh.ca> wrote: > 1.5 > 1.6 > 1.7 > 1.8 > 1.9 > > When the index numbers are float or strings, they sort like this. But I > want "1.10" to be the last number. Any idea how to put these guys in the > right order? These are not numbers; they're strings. Or at least, they need to be; if they weren't, 1.1 and 1.10 would be indistinguishable. So let's assume they *are* strings. Then what you're asking to do is to compare the two halves of each string as an integer. Take 1.1 and 2.1, for instance; they compare as 1 and 2 would compare as integers. Very well, now take 1.10 and 1.2, for instance. 1 and 1 are the same, so 10 and 2 need to compare as the integers 10 and 2. So: arr = %w{ 1.1 1.10 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 } arr = arr.sort do |x,y| x1, x2 = x.split(".") y1, y2 = y.split(".") if x1 != y1 x1.to_i <=> y1.to_i else x2.to_i <=> y2.to_i end end p arr If there are a lot of these, however, it would be much better to do a keyed sort using sort_by. How to create keys depends on what you know about the data. If we knew for a fact that the second half was always between 1 and 99, it would be easy: arr = arr.sort_by do |x| x1, x2 = x.split(".") x1.to_i * 100 + x2.to_i end If the second half can be any length, though, you'll have to determine the maximum length first, and change that "100" multiplier accordingly. m.

on 2009-03-28 04:01

Hi Matt, Are you _the_ Matt Neuburg, of AppleScript fame? It's a privilege to have an answer from you! matt neuburg wrote: > These are not numbers; they're strings. Or at least, they need to be; if > they weren't, 1.1 and 1.10 would be indistinguishable. Yes, I think this was becoming my assumption. The head-scratcher for me was trying to determine if this sort of numbering scheme ("the hierarchical list", if you will) was a special case in Ruby or generally. But in my model right now (this is for a Rails project) it's set as a string. > If there are a lot of these, however, it would be much better to do a > keyed sort using sort_by. How to create keys depends on what you know > about the data. If we knew for a fact that the second half was always > between 1 and 99, it would be easy: > > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x1, x2 = x.split(".") > x1.to_i * 100 + x2.to_i > end And it turns out that a hundred is more than enough in this case. Thanks to you, and to Yossef above, for a working solution. Cheers! Aaron.

on 2009-03-28 05:08

matt neuburg wrote: > If there are a lot of these, however, it would be much better to do a > keyed sort using sort_by. How to create keys depends on what you know > about the data. If we knew for a fact that the second half was always > between 1 and 99, it would be easy: > > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x1, x2 = x.split(".") > x1.to_i * 100 + x2.to_i > end > > If the second half can be any length, though, you'll have to determine > the maximum length first, and change that "100" multiplier accordingly. Either that or use arrays as sort keys: arr = arr.sort_by do |x| x.split(".").map {|i| i.to_i} end -Matthias

on 2009-03-28 06:34

Hi, At Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:04:43 +0900, Matthias Reitinger wrote in [ruby-talk:332318]: > > If the second half can be any length, though, you'll have to determine > > the maximum length first, and change that "100" multiplier accordingly. > > Either that or use arrays as sort keys: > > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x.split(".").map {|i| i.to_i} > end enc/depend file in 1.9 has more generic code. alphanumeric_order = proc {|e| e.scan(/(\d+)|(\D+)/).map {|n,a| a||[n.size,n.to_i]}.flatten} But this fails if strings start with digit and strings start with non-digit are mixed. In such case, this is safer. alphanumeric_order = proc {|e| e.scan(/(\A\D*|\G\D+)(\d+)/).map{|a,n|[a,n.size,n.to_i]}.flatten}

on 2009-03-28 11:10

On 28.03.2009 05:04, Matthias Reitinger wrote: >> >> If the second half can be any length, though, you'll have to determine >> the maximum length first, and change that "100" multiplier accordingly. > > Either that or use arrays as sort keys: > > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x.split(".").map {|i| i.to_i} > end Here's a variant (1.9 only): arr.sort_by {|x| x.scan(/\d+/).map(&:to_i)} Cheers robert

on 2009-03-28 13:06

Aaron Vegh <aaron@vegh.ca> wrote: > I'm working with a list of items that contain decimal-based index > numbers. I'm sorry I don't know the term for these kinds of numbers, > and I'm having trouble finding out how to sort them properly [...] Probably the Dewey Decimal Classification, or the Universal Decimal Classification. Chris

on 2009-03-28 17:40

Matthias Reitinger <reitinge@in.tum.de> wrote: > > > > If the second half can be any length, though, you'll have to determine > > the maximum length first, and change that "100" multiplier accordingly. > > Either that or use arrays as sort keys: > > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x.split(".").map {|i| i.to_i} > end Yes, that's better; my first answer failed to take into account Array's existing implementation of the spaceship operator. m.

on 2009-03-28 23:24

On Mar 27, 11:04 pm, Matthias Reitinger <reiti...@in.tum.de> wrote: > arr = arr.sort_by do |x| > x.split(".").map {|i| i.to_i} > end Durr, of course that's better than my solution of transforming the array elements and then re-creating the original ones after the sort. For some reason, I completely forgot about sort_by.