Sorting a clist in LaTeX3
I have a clist that I'd like to bubble sort. I'm sure this is a simple matter of something like clist_bubblesort:N or something, but I don't know what the appropriate incantation is. A quick google didn't reveal anything obvious...
sorting latex3 expl3
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
add a comment |
I have a clist that I'd like to bubble sort. I'm sure this is a simple matter of something like clist_bubblesort:N or something, but I don't know what the appropriate incantation is. A quick google didn't reveal anything obvious...
sorting latex3 expl3
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
add a comment |
I have a clist that I'd like to bubble sort. I'm sure this is a simple matter of something like clist_bubblesort:N or something, but I don't know what the appropriate incantation is. A quick google didn't reveal anything obvious...
sorting latex3 expl3
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
I have a clist that I'd like to bubble sort. I'm sure this is a simple matter of something like clist_bubblesort:N or something, but I don't know what the appropriate incantation is. A quick google didn't reveal anything obvious...
sorting latex3 expl3
sorting latex3 expl3
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
asked May 8 '13 at 12:14
Seamus
44.9k35215332
44.9k35215332
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The l3sort package does that (but currently with a merge sort, I hope you don't mind the speed-up), as long as the clist has at most 20000 items or so (I can't remember the exact limit).
documentclass{article}
usepackage{expl3, xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
clist_new:N l_my_clist
NewDocumentCommand{sorted}{m}
{
clist_set:Nn l_my_clist {#1}
clist_sort:Nn l_my_clist
{ int_compare:nTF { ##1 > ##2 } { sort_return_swapped: } { sort_return_same: } }
clist_use:Nnnn l_my_clist { ~ and ~ } { , ~ } { , ~ and ~ }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
The sorted numbers are sorted{3, 4, 123, -1, 2, -01}.
end{document}
The command stores the given list in a clist variable, l_my_clist, then sorts it, using the following criterion: compare two items as integers; if the first is greater than the second, they must be swapped; otherwise keep them in the same order. Then use that clist, with the appropriate separators: ~and~ for lists with two items, ,~ between most items, ending with ,~and~. The ~ are in fact space tokens since space is ignored.
Note that the sort is stable, in the sense that numbers that compare equal are considered ordered (this relies, of course, on choosing the test appropriately, calling sort_return_same: when the numbers are equal, as is done here).
I have a longer term plan to provide something like sort_keep_one:n {##1} which would allow to keep only one of the two terms, which is useful to remove duplicates. I can imagine this being useful too when building an index, keeping only one copy of each work, but keeping track of a list of page numbers: sort_keep_one:n { ##1 ~ <pages> }.
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have thissort_keep_one:nfunctionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on thesort_keep_onestuff).
– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f113206%2fsorting-a-clist-in-latex3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The l3sort package does that (but currently with a merge sort, I hope you don't mind the speed-up), as long as the clist has at most 20000 items or so (I can't remember the exact limit).
documentclass{article}
usepackage{expl3, xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
clist_new:N l_my_clist
NewDocumentCommand{sorted}{m}
{
clist_set:Nn l_my_clist {#1}
clist_sort:Nn l_my_clist
{ int_compare:nTF { ##1 > ##2 } { sort_return_swapped: } { sort_return_same: } }
clist_use:Nnnn l_my_clist { ~ and ~ } { , ~ } { , ~ and ~ }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
The sorted numbers are sorted{3, 4, 123, -1, 2, -01}.
end{document}
The command stores the given list in a clist variable, l_my_clist, then sorts it, using the following criterion: compare two items as integers; if the first is greater than the second, they must be swapped; otherwise keep them in the same order. Then use that clist, with the appropriate separators: ~and~ for lists with two items, ,~ between most items, ending with ,~and~. The ~ are in fact space tokens since space is ignored.
Note that the sort is stable, in the sense that numbers that compare equal are considered ordered (this relies, of course, on choosing the test appropriately, calling sort_return_same: when the numbers are equal, as is done here).
I have a longer term plan to provide something like sort_keep_one:n {##1} which would allow to keep only one of the two terms, which is useful to remove duplicates. I can imagine this being useful too when building an index, keeping only one copy of each work, but keeping track of a list of page numbers: sort_keep_one:n { ##1 ~ <pages> }.
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have thissort_keep_one:nfunctionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on thesort_keep_onestuff).
– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
|
show 2 more comments
The l3sort package does that (but currently with a merge sort, I hope you don't mind the speed-up), as long as the clist has at most 20000 items or so (I can't remember the exact limit).
documentclass{article}
usepackage{expl3, xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
clist_new:N l_my_clist
NewDocumentCommand{sorted}{m}
{
clist_set:Nn l_my_clist {#1}
clist_sort:Nn l_my_clist
{ int_compare:nTF { ##1 > ##2 } { sort_return_swapped: } { sort_return_same: } }
clist_use:Nnnn l_my_clist { ~ and ~ } { , ~ } { , ~ and ~ }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
The sorted numbers are sorted{3, 4, 123, -1, 2, -01}.
end{document}
The command stores the given list in a clist variable, l_my_clist, then sorts it, using the following criterion: compare two items as integers; if the first is greater than the second, they must be swapped; otherwise keep them in the same order. Then use that clist, with the appropriate separators: ~and~ for lists with two items, ,~ between most items, ending with ,~and~. The ~ are in fact space tokens since space is ignored.
Note that the sort is stable, in the sense that numbers that compare equal are considered ordered (this relies, of course, on choosing the test appropriately, calling sort_return_same: when the numbers are equal, as is done here).
I have a longer term plan to provide something like sort_keep_one:n {##1} which would allow to keep only one of the two terms, which is useful to remove duplicates. I can imagine this being useful too when building an index, keeping only one copy of each work, but keeping track of a list of page numbers: sort_keep_one:n { ##1 ~ <pages> }.
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have thissort_keep_one:nfunctionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on thesort_keep_onestuff).
– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
|
show 2 more comments
The l3sort package does that (but currently with a merge sort, I hope you don't mind the speed-up), as long as the clist has at most 20000 items or so (I can't remember the exact limit).
documentclass{article}
usepackage{expl3, xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
clist_new:N l_my_clist
NewDocumentCommand{sorted}{m}
{
clist_set:Nn l_my_clist {#1}
clist_sort:Nn l_my_clist
{ int_compare:nTF { ##1 > ##2 } { sort_return_swapped: } { sort_return_same: } }
clist_use:Nnnn l_my_clist { ~ and ~ } { , ~ } { , ~ and ~ }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
The sorted numbers are sorted{3, 4, 123, -1, 2, -01}.
end{document}
The command stores the given list in a clist variable, l_my_clist, then sorts it, using the following criterion: compare two items as integers; if the first is greater than the second, they must be swapped; otherwise keep them in the same order. Then use that clist, with the appropriate separators: ~and~ for lists with two items, ,~ between most items, ending with ,~and~. The ~ are in fact space tokens since space is ignored.
Note that the sort is stable, in the sense that numbers that compare equal are considered ordered (this relies, of course, on choosing the test appropriately, calling sort_return_same: when the numbers are equal, as is done here).
I have a longer term plan to provide something like sort_keep_one:n {##1} which would allow to keep only one of the two terms, which is useful to remove duplicates. I can imagine this being useful too when building an index, keeping only one copy of each work, but keeping track of a list of page numbers: sort_keep_one:n { ##1 ~ <pages> }.
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
The l3sort package does that (but currently with a merge sort, I hope you don't mind the speed-up), as long as the clist has at most 20000 items or so (I can't remember the exact limit).
documentclass{article}
usepackage{expl3, xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
clist_new:N l_my_clist
NewDocumentCommand{sorted}{m}
{
clist_set:Nn l_my_clist {#1}
clist_sort:Nn l_my_clist
{ int_compare:nTF { ##1 > ##2 } { sort_return_swapped: } { sort_return_same: } }
clist_use:Nnnn l_my_clist { ~ and ~ } { , ~ } { , ~ and ~ }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
The sorted numbers are sorted{3, 4, 123, -1, 2, -01}.
end{document}
The command stores the given list in a clist variable, l_my_clist, then sorts it, using the following criterion: compare two items as integers; if the first is greater than the second, they must be swapped; otherwise keep them in the same order. Then use that clist, with the appropriate separators: ~and~ for lists with two items, ,~ between most items, ending with ,~and~. The ~ are in fact space tokens since space is ignored.
Note that the sort is stable, in the sense that numbers that compare equal are considered ordered (this relies, of course, on choosing the test appropriately, calling sort_return_same: when the numbers are equal, as is done here).
I have a longer term plan to provide something like sort_keep_one:n {##1} which would allow to keep only one of the two terms, which is useful to remove duplicates. I can imagine this being useful too when building an index, keeping only one copy of each work, but keeping track of a list of page numbers: sort_keep_one:n { ##1 ~ <pages> }.
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
edited 11 mins ago
tambre
1688
1688
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
answered May 8 '13 at 12:38
Bruno Le Floch
33.9k5114211
33.9k5114211
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have thissort_keep_one:nfunctionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on thesort_keep_onestuff).
– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
|
show 2 more comments
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have thissort_keep_one:nfunctionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on thesort_keep_onestuff).
– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
4
4
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
We should probably finalise this module, if we can: it's a useful and general idea, needing only a good interface discussion.
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 12:47
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have this
sort_keep_one:n functionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
@JosephWright I agree. On my side I need to unearth some code that would let us have this
sort_keep_one:n functionality, as the current approach with merge sort makes it impossible.– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 12:59
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
That's an implementation thing, right? If so, we should take about interface on the LaTeX-L list and get that sorted ;-)
– Joseph Wright♦
May 8 '13 at 13:08
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
Yes, but it is important to know what is feasible/not (so my main point was "there exists an efficient implementation where it is possible to reduce the number of items in the list"). Let's.
– Bruno Le Floch
May 8 '13 at 13:50
3
3
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on the
sort_keep_one stuff).– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
Maybe this answer should be updated to the current state of expl3 (other commands for returning the state, not experimental, but in official interface3 and maybe an update on the
sort_keep_one stuff).– TeXnician
Apr 5 at 8:47
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f113206%2fsorting-a-clist-in-latex3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
