|
| Why Iterating by Numerical Index Might Not Reflect Sort Order in Associative Arrays |
| Débuté par zenny75kler, 05 juin 2025 12:35 - Aucune réponse |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
Membre enregistré
1 message |
|
| Posté le 05 juin 2025 - 12:35 |
The core of the problem lies in the nature of associative arrays (or maps) versus indexed arrays (or lists) and how sorting typically works.
https://www.targetpayandbenefits.it.com
Associative Arrays/Maps and Keys:
Associative arrays (like hash maps, dictionaries in Python, std::map or std::unordered_map in C++, Map objects in JavaScript) store data as key-value pairs.
The order in which elements are stored or iterated over in an associative array is primarily determined by its keys, or by the internal implementation details of the data structure (e.g., hash order for unordered_map, key order for std::map).
Crucially, if you sort the values within the associative array, it typically does not re-order the keys themselves or change the iteration order based on numerical indices.
Sorting Mechanisms:
When the user says they "sort according to two members of my structure," this usually means they are sorting a collection of these structures.
If the structures are the values in an associative array, then sorting them likely creates a new ordered collection (e.g., a sorted list of the values), or it sorts the values in place if the associative array's internal mechanism supports it (which is rare for a general sort operation that changes element order based on value properties).
Iteration by Numerical Index (1 to End):
This type of iteration (1 to end) strongly suggests that the user is treating their data as if it were a traditional indexed array (like array[1], array[2], etc.).
If the original "associative array" does not inherently maintain a numerical index from 1 to N that is re-ordered by the sort, then iterating this way will not give the sorted results. |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
|