never mind
[1/4] from: hijim::pronet::net at: 12-Nov-2001 12:53
I made a mistake. I have 10 fields per record. I changed the 7 to a 10
and everything works fine. Very strange. Now the number is a valid
argument. I guess it just didn't like number 7.
Jim
Jim Clatfelter wrote:
[2/4] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 12-Nov-2001 14:55
Hi, Jim,
Jim Clatfelter wrote:
> I made a mistake. I have 10 fields per record. I changed the 7 to
> a 10 and everything works fine. Very strange. Now the number is a
> valid argument. I guess it just didn't like number 7.
>
How about a guess that the length of your block was a multiple of 10
but *not* a multiple of 7?
-jn-
--
This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't.
-- Doug Hofstadter
joel<dot>neely<at>fedex<dot>com
[3/4] from: media:quazart at: 12-Nov-2001 16:07
if your list had been 70 records it would not have minded.... ;-)
sort/skip expects the block size to be lenght? by a multiple of the amount
specified in skip... otherwise it couldn't really sort the last (and
probably corrupt) fields of data, which do not make up a complete "record".
maybe it actually sorts up to the end and then has a few records left over
it doesn't know what to do with...
-Maxim
[4/4] from: hijim:pronet at: 12-Nov-2001 17:13
Hi Joel,
Yes, good guess. The data comes from
my-data: read/lines %pghoa.lst
There are 1040 lines total. Now I know why 7 didn't work.
Thanks,
Jim
Joel Neely wrote: