n Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:52:20 -0500, dpb < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
You're kidding, right?...right?
Been using it since introduced to Basic around 1978.
Okay. The plan wasn't reusability, but suggestion well taken.
If not, the lngLowest will simply equal 0 which would be correct.
Doesn't this only change the initialize values for these two
variables? Does it actually change anything in speed or results? If
there is a zero in the bunch, lngLowest will still equal 0.
I suppose it saves 1 revolution of the loop. :-)
I'll make the modification.
No, not sorted. If so, I'd be able to take the first and last array
item as the lowest and highest value. Sorting it would make this task
take much longer, and I do need the values in the order they currently
are for display reasons.
Each array index, from 0 to UBound, relates directly to the grid that
will display those values. Column 0 will display value at index 0 of
the array, etc. So the order must remain as is.
The values for each array item is the result of adding up 'points'.
And yes, I can in fact add the Lowest/Highest variables within the
loop that does the point adding and array fill. However, I was
interested in seeing how this function itself can be improved on
rather than tricking out my code. But hey, you did just give me a
short-cut I was not thinking about outside of this thread. Thanks!
Hey, what are you, my English teacher or a stand-up comedian? :-) Or
are you bragging of knowing Hefner? LOL!