Thanks Mike.
I usually leave it up to the calling function to do the sorting. Basically I
was playing with a new toy, as it were, to see what the possibilities were.
Anyway, the brevity of your code and the degree of efficiency is a great
lesson.
Just wanted to let you, as well as the many others that contribute to this
group, know that your help is appreciated.
Thanks again,
Don
"michael puckett" wrote in message news:40770532_3@newsprd01...
> I don't mind, though I probably wouldn't bother myself: the law
> of diminishing returns starts to come into play when you try to
> make functions "too generic". Where that line is varies of course.
>
> If I were going to go add a function like this to my library I'd
> probably omit the sort code, as 99 times out of 100 you probably
> don't require a sorted result, thus paying an unnecessary performance
> hit the majority of the time. One option might be to add sorting
> as an option via a flag (parameter): (table name mask sorted)
>
> One potential problem is that all of a table entry's various statii
> are encoded to the 70 group, so a general 'LOGical AND' may not
> always work the way you envision it might, that is, sometimes you'll
> be interested in the entry if the 'AND'ed result is 0, other times
> when it is non zero or worse, combinations. Still DOable of course,
> it just requires more flexibility in your code (back to my first
> comment).
>
> Anyway, play with it -- if it helps or contributes to your coding
> great.
>
> Thanks again for asking.
>
> "Don Butler" wrote in message
news:4075be16$1_3@newsprd01...
> > Michael:
> >
> > I hope you don't mind, but I have created a general purpose routine
> > utilizing your code.
>
>