Re: Re: Sorting times (SOLVED before tedds crappy SOLVED)

tedd wrote: > At 9:56 AM +0100 2/16/09, Jochem Maas wrote: >> for any reasonable number of items my tests show tedd's version >> pisses on McKenzies from a great height (note that I actually >> optimized Mckenzies variant by halfing the number of calls to >> strtotime()). > > ROTFLOL. <-- I seldom say that! Haha! Yes, I was trolling and got a good one from Jochem! I would say ROTFLMAO! > > From a great height!!! Now that's funny! Too funny. I'll have to remember to work this in to some conversation today at work. ;-) >> I added a third variant, as a sort of control, which runs pretty >> much on par with tedd's version but uses rather less LOC >> (tedd you might like it as a little example of using array_multisort(), >> i.e. a way of avoiding writing the double foreach loop in this case) > > The speed of the sort doesn't matter at all. The maximum number of data > that needed to be sorted in my problem would have been 126 (18 different > times for 7 days). > > I only presented part of the problem here. It was a distilled version of > the problem I was working on, which was to allow people to enter times > that they were available for tutoring in two hour chunks. > > So, a person might say they were available from 7:00 am to 9:00 am AND > also state that they were available from 7:30 am to 9:30 am, which was a > "no-no". > > Having two loops allowed me to check after converting to seconds AND > sorting to see if there were any overlaps. In such case I simply deleted > the offending data from the array before converting everything back into > normal time (min:sec). > > Re this post -- all I needed was a push in the right direction. I was > thinking about sorting, but I didn't even consider converting everything > to seconds and then sorting. > > That's really all I needed AND another reason why this list is so great! > Not only did I get a push in the right direction, but I got a good laugh > out of it -- "from great heights" indeed. :-) > > Thanks and Cheers, > > tedd > -- Thanks! -Shawn http://www.spidean.com