Re: Using pointers to manage like arrays?

[Loyd Goodbar <loyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That is exactly what I'm doing. I don't need to know the minimum value, just
the top 10 (selectable by the user from 1-99). I know I posted a lot of
code, here are the relevant pieces to your point:

     d toplistcount    s              5i 0 inz(0)
     d                 ds
     d toplist                       90    dim(1000) descend
     d  topdept                            inz like(sqlrow.department)
     d                                     overlay(toplist:1)
     d  topitem                            inz like(sqlrow.item)
     d                                     overlay(toplist:*next)
     d  topdesc                            inz like(sqlrow.item_desc)
     d                                     overlay(toplist:*next)
     d  topqty                             inz
     d                                     like(sqlrow.dr_qty)
     d                                     overlay(toplist:*next)
     d  topcost                            inz
     d                                     like(sqlrow.ext_cost)
     d                                     overlay(toplist:*next)

and

            sorta %subarr(topqty:1:toplistcount);
            wrtsection('topqtyheader');
            for i = 1 to workrank;
                if i <= toplistcount;
                   updhtmlvar('topqtyitem':topitem(i));
...
                   wrtsection('topqtydetail');
                endif;
            endfor;
            sorta %subarr(topcost:1:toplistcount);
            wrtsection('topcostheader');
            for i = 1 to workrank;
                if i <= toplistcount;
                   updhtmlvar('topcostitem':topitem(i));
...

All the entries I am interested in are in the range of 1 to toplistcount.
Since the array is bounded and I am checking bounds on insert, this sorta
restricts to the actual data set - no need to worry about false sort values.


My issue is I have two arrays that are identical in structure, how could I
use one piece of code to report over it, instead of two (or four). Simon's
suggestion appears to be what I was thinking about.

Thanks,
Loyd


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, <Asher613Smith@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Again, SORT to the rescue. If you define the array over a data structure,
> each element of which has both fields. then you can sort the array
> descending  once by the first field (cost),
> and elements 1 - 10 will have the 10 top costs. Then sort the array a
> second time by the quantity descending, and elements 1-10 will have the 10
> top
> quantities.