Listbox Sort not same as Array Sort

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

'

'PBWIN 9.00 - WinApi 05/2008 - XP Pro SP3
#Compile Exe                                                         
 
#Include "WIN32API.INC"
 
Function PBMain
  Global hdlg As Dword
  Dialog New Pixels, hdlg, "ListBox sorts", , , 400, 400, %WS_SYSMENU To hdlg
  
    Local Wdth&, Hght&, Stile&, ctr&, ctr1&, t$, StartAt&
    Local Id1&, id2&, id3&, a$(), b$(), c$()
    Local StileA&, StileB&, StileC&
    
    'build arrays
    ctr = 25
    Dim a$(ctr), b$(ctr), c$(ctr)
    For ctr = LBound(a$()) To UBound(a$())
       'random string
        t$ = String$(10, Chr$(Rnd(65, 90)))
          ctr1 = Rnd(1, 2)
            If ctr1 = 1 Then t$ = "_" & t$
        a$(ctr) = t$
        b$(ctr) = t$
        c$(ctr) = t$
    Next ctr
                       
     Array Sort c$()                  
      Wdth = 100
      Hght = 300
       
  StartAt = 10
  StileA = %LBS_NOINTEGRALHEIGHT Or %WS_VSCROLL Or %LBS_NOTIFY 'no sort
  Control Add Label, hdlg, -1, "Original Unsorted", StartAt + 5, 1, Wdth, 14
  Control Add ListBox, hdlg, id1, a$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileA
 
  StartAt = StartAt + Wdth + 40
  StileB =  %LBS_STANDARD 'includes sort style
  Control Add Label, hdlg, -1, "Listbox Sorted", StartAt, 1, Wdth, 14
  Control Add ListBox, hdlg, id2, b$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileB
 
  StartAt = StartAt + Wdth + 40
  StileC = StileA 'no sort
  Control Add Label, hdlg, -1, "Array Sorted", StartAt, 1, Wdth, 14
  Control Add ListBox, hdlg, id3, c$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileC
 
  
     Dialog Show Modal hDlg  
End Function
'
'

[Michael Mattias]

I'm not sure what this means, but it certainly is interesting.

I for sure was surprised to see the two LBs on the right were not identical.

Please sate my curiosity: how did you happen to discover this behavior?

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

I'm not sure what this means, but it certainly is interesting.

What it means is the Listbox Sort is not identical to Array Sort (Chr$(95) is ignored in the former and acknowledged in the latter).

I for sure was surprised to see the two LBs on the right were not identical.

Please sate my curiosity: how did you happen to discover this behavior?

I'm a curious guy?

[Chris Boss]

It appears that Windows uses a Sort which has some rules about non-alphabetic characters, which puts them before characters, even if the ascii code is higher than the characters.

PB is sorting according to the ascii values and in proper order.

Here is a modified version which adds the ascii value of the first character to each item. It makes it easier to see what is happening.

'PBWIN 9.00 - WinApi 05/2008 - XP Pro SP3
#COMPILE EXE
#INCLUDE "WIN32API.INC"
FUNCTION PBMAIN
  GLOBAL hdlg AS DWORD
  DIALOG NEW PIXELS, hdlg, "ListBox sorts", , , 400, 400, %WS_SYSMENU TO hdlg
    LOCAL Wdth&, Hght&, Stile&, ctr&, ctr1&, t$, StartAt&
    LOCAL Id1&, id2&, id3&, a$(), b$(), c$()
    LOCAL StileA&, StileB&, StileC&
    'build arrays
    ctr = 25
    DIM a$(ctr), b$(ctr), c$(ctr)
    FOR ctr = LBOUND(a$()) TO UBOUND(a$())
       'random string
        t$ = STRING$(5, CHR$(RND(65, 90)))
          ctr1 = RND(1, 2)
            IF ctr1 = 1 THEN t$ = "_" & t$
        a$(ctr) = t$+" "+STR$(ASC(t$))
        b$(ctr) = t$+" "+STR$(ASC(t$))
        c$(ctr) = t$+" "+STR$(ASC(t$))
    NEXT ctr
     ARRAY SORT c$()
      Wdth = 100
      Hght = 300
  StartAt = 10
  StileA = %LBS_NOINTEGRALHEIGHT OR %WS_VSCROLL OR %LBS_NOTIFY 'no sort
  CONTROL ADD LABEL, hdlg, -1, "Original Unsorted", StartAt + 5, 1, Wdth, 14
  CONTROL ADD LISTBOX, hdlg, id1, a$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileA
  StartAt = StartAt + Wdth + 40
  StileB =  %LBS_STANDARD 'includes sort style
  CONTROL ADD LABEL, hdlg, -1, "Listbox Sorted", StartAt, 1, Wdth, 14
  CONTROL ADD LISTBOX, hdlg, id2, b$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileB
  StartAt = StartAt + Wdth + 40
  StileC = StileA 'no sort
  CONTROL ADD LABEL, hdlg, -1, "Array Sorted", StartAt, 1, Wdth, 14
  CONTROL ADD LISTBOX, hdlg, id3, c$(), StartAt, 16, Wdth, Hght,  StileC

     DIALOG SHOW MODAL hDlg
END FUNCTION
'
'

[Roger Garstang]

It may even do the new XP sorting too that tries to put things in numeric order, etc.

Like before:
1
10
2
20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Now goes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20

And, of course this can be modified by a registry key to make it even more fun to keep track of.

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

And, of course this can be modified by a registry key to make it even more fun to keep track of.

Ah, yes. I can see it now. To the wife:

"Just put the cd in the little slide out tray on your computer, dear, and the program will install automatically."

"Oh, and then go to the Cmd line and type RegEdit ..."

=========================
It is hard to free fools
from chains they revere.
~ Voltaire
=========================

[Michael Mattias]

put the cd in the little slide out tray on your computer, dear, and the program will install automatically..Oh, and then go to the Cmd line and type RegEdit ..

This is why setup tools are so handy. Using Inno Setup making a registry entry or at 'install time' is a piece of cake.. and you can also make it a user option. .

If you want to provide a CD which is "plug in and it installs" why not have it install completely?

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

This is why setup tools are so handy. Using Inno Setup making a registry entry or at 'install time' is a piece of cake.. and you can also make it a user option. .

If you want to provide a CD which is "plug in and it installs" why not have it install completely?

Are you being sardonic? Or was I?

[Michael Mattias]

Not at all.

I really, truly believe that an application designed for "Suzy User" to install herself can't require "regedit" and setup tools make it easy for the developer to make this happen.

I also really, truly believe that any application designed for "Suzy User" to install herself and does request she use "regedit" is the mark of a rank amateur developer and reflects poorly on the entire professional software developer community.




MCM

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

... is the mark of a rank amateur developer and reflects poorly on the entire professional software developer community.

MCM

Wow! A whole new level of sardonicism. Talk about going from DDT to SDK.

================================
An open foe may prove a curse;
but a pretended friend is worse.
Ben Franklin
================================

[Pedro Ramirez]

I also really, truly believe that any application designed for "Suzy User" to install herself and does request she use "regedit" is the mark of a rank amateur developer and reflects poorly on the entire professional software developer community.

MCM

One hundred percent right, Michael. The install program must do everything that needs to be done for the program to get installed properly.

Even programming for fools is tricky!.
Whenever I finish writting a new program that is supossedly idiot proof, I hand it over to two or three people at the office for testing. It always amazes me how they find programming flaws right at the first click!.

[Michael Mattias]

Whenever I finish writting a new program that is supossedly idiot proof, I hand it over to two or three people at the office for testing. It always amazes me how they find programming flaws right at the first click!.

I don't see programming errors much, but feature content is something else.

After weeks (which seem like months) of working out details with my client contact, it basically never fails that in the first five minutes Susie User will say something like, "this is nice but it would have been better if you had included <X>."

At which point everyone - myself included -gives himself a big and tells himself, "of course we should have included <X>!"

MCM