That is correct Ben. It's not the repeat for each that is unreliable (probably a bad word to use here) but it is arrays which do not retain the sequence of key/values in the order they were put in.
To get around this, when possible use numbered keys, then: put the keys of aMyArray into tKeyList sort the lines of tKeyList numeric ascending repeat for each line tKey in tKeyList ... Bob S > On Oct 12, 2017, at 04:48 , Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > >> One note of caution regarding the use of the "repeat for each" loop, whilst >> you will get a loop iteration for every value in the collection >> (fldhexa3 in your example), you are not guaranteed the order in which they >> will occur. > > Are you sure? My understanding has always been that chunk items, e.g. > repeat for each [ byte | char | word | item | line] <var> in <container> > > will always be sequential (indeed that's why this structure is fast) - it's > only when dealing with hashed arrays that the sequence is not reliable, i.e. > repeat for each key <var> in <array> > repeat for each element <var> in <array> > > Do you have experience to the contrary? > > best regards, > > Ben _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
