sorting 2d arrays using qsort

[yatindran]

hai
this is my 2d array.
int a[][6] = {
{5,2,20,1,30,10 },
{23,15,7,9,11,3 },
{40,50,34,24,14 ,4},
{9,10,11,12,13, 14},
{31,4,18,8,27,1 7},
{44,32,13,19,41 ,19},
{1,2,3,4,5,6},
{80,37,47,18,21 ,9}
};
after
for(i=0;i<box;i ++)
qsort(a[i],dim,sizeof(int ),dim*_sort);
int dim_sort(const void *a,const void *b)
{
return ( *(int*)a - *(int*)b);
}
where dim=6, i get the foll o/p:
1 2 5 10 20 30
3 7 9 11 15 23
4 14 24 34 40 50
9 10 11 12 13 14
4 8 17 18 27 31
13 19 19 32 41 44
1 2 3 4 5 6
9 18 21 37 47 80
(works fine!)
now i want to sort each row of elements for above array,
like
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 5 10 20 30
....
etc.

what is the qsort routine and function, can anybody help me ?
cheers,
badri

[pete]

CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:

... snip ...

> So would an
> array sort based on the 3rd (index 2) item of each array.

I think I understand that, but that would be silly.

Why?
I don't that think OP's specifications are as cryptic
as you seem to think that they are.

Probably not, but I could write a lot of software that would meed
the specs and be totally useless. This sort of thing leads to
lawsuits and other things that enhance the lawyers standard of
living.

You're becoming Nilgean.
And all I really said in the first place was "document
what you wrote".
No, it was really strange.
If you're going to use quotes, quote what you wrote.
You said
"In other words you have come to the arbitrary decision that the
highest indexed component of the array is the most significant.
Fine, but you should document it in the comparison routine.
Whether or not this is what the OP wants is unknown."

Now we both know that I can't document an arbitrary decision that the
highest indexed component of the array is the most significant,
because there's nothing like that going on anywhere.

Then you went on to say,
"Notice that the opposite decision,
based on the highest order component of the array,
would have given the same result as far as his example actually went."

.... and since there's no way that that method could produce this:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 5 10 20 30
...
etc.
from this:
1 2 5 10 20 30
3 7 9 11 15 23
4 14 24 34 40 50
9 10 11 12 13 14
4 8 17 18 27 31
13 19 19 32 41 44
1 2 3 4 5 6
9 18 21 37 47 80
(works fine!)

.... what that tells me mostly,
is just simply that you are confused
and didn't understand the problem to begin with.

--
pete

[Paul Mesken]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:44:10 GMT, pete <pf*****@mindsp ring.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:

>
> I don't that think OP's specifications are as cryptic
> as you seem to think that they are.

Probably not, but I could write a lot of software that would meed
the specs and be totally useless. This sort of thing leads to
lawsuits and other things that enhance the lawyers standard of
living.

You're becoming Nilgean.

Don't use that term too lightly. Nilges would have written a 500+ line
article claiming the poster is guilty of imperialism and how the
poster is actually an unknowing minion (brainwashed by George Lucas)
in a dark scheme of shady neocon agents ;-)

I still try to figure out his claim that favoring C over VB is
actually racist. I just can't see the connection (perhaps it's better
that way :-)

[pete]

Paul Mesken wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:44:10 GMT, pete <pf*****@mindsp ring.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:
>
> I don't that think OP's specifications are as cryptic
> as you seem to think that they are.

Probably not, but I could write a lot of software that would meed
the specs and be totally useless. This sort of thing leads to
lawsuits and other things that enhance the lawyers standard of
living.

You're becoming Nilgean.

Don't use that term too lightly. Ni

shh, he greps newsfeed. never spell his name.

--
pete

[CBFalconer]

pete wrote:

.... snip ...
You're becoming Nilgean.

Savage. This means war :-)

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson