Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:52:29 -0500
Reply-To: Interhub Mailer Daemon <support@LANSOFT.QUINTILES.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From: Interhub Mailer Daemon <support@LANSOFT.QUINTILES.COM>
Organization: Quintiles, Inc.
Subject: Message Delivery Refused - Unknown Account
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Please present this message to your Administrator.
Dear Administrator:
The email message below has NOT been delivered to the internet because
InterHub was unable to determine the status of your account. This may
be due to your site being so new that the InterHub database has not
updated with your information yet, or possibly because you have not
asked Lansoft to provide this site with Internet access.
The site in question appears after the @ sign below.
Examined address: SAS-L@QRTPSMTP (SAS(r) Discussion) {SAS-L@AKH-WIEN.AC.AT}
If this symptom continues for longer than 60 minutes or if you
otherwise feel that this is in error, please contact us by replying to
this message or calling us at 614-786-1713 to verify and validate
your account information.
Note: If this message was intended to any Lansoft staff, it was sent
regardless of the above condition but only to Lansoft recipients.
Your original message is included below:
---------------------------------------
240Send-to: mail@mailrout {richard_paterson@yahoo.com}
To: SAS-L@QRTPSMTP {SAS-L@AKH-WIEN.AC.AT}
200MCB-options: YNYNANA
Date-posted: 27-Apr-98 11:26:41
220Hop-count: 8
200O-C2-Routed-By: IH; received from QRTP; at 27-Apr-98 11:52:10
200O-C2-Routed-By: QRTP; received from QEDI; at 27-Apr-98 11:53:20
200O-C2-Routed-By: QEDI; received from QEDI2; at 27-Apr-98 16:49:38
202C2-ID: FCD05D3681DC0000
200O-C2-Routed-By: QEDI2; received from -Local-; at 27-Apr-98 16:49:01
O-C2-Forwarded-by: RPATERSO@QEDI2
200O-C2-Routed-By: QEDI2; received from QEDI; at 27-Apr-98 16:48:57
200O-C2-Routed-By: QEDI; received from QRED; at 27-Apr-98 16:46:41
200O-C2-Routed-By: QRED; received from QRTP; at 27-Apr-98 16:45:14
200O-C2-Routed-By: QRTP; received from -Local-; at 27-Apr-98 11:26:41
Sender: SAS-L@QRTPSMTP (SAS(r) Discussion) {SAS-L@AKH-WIEN.AC.AT}
O-SMTP-Date-posted: 27-Apr-98 11:26:16 -0500
From: MEDISCI@QRTPSMTP (John Whittington) {medisci@POWERNET.COM}
Reply-to: MEDISCI @ QRTPSMTP (John Whittington) {medisci@POWERNET.COM}
Subject: Re: RE Sorting Arrays
Date: 27-Apr-98 9:20:00 -0500
Message-id: C9D05D3601DC0000
O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <owner-sas-l@VM.AKH-WIEN.AC.AT>
200MHS-id: FCD05D3681DC0000
200Via-host: QRTP.QRTP
200O-C2-Serial-Host: QRTP
200O-C2-Serial-No: IAANAAAANM,
IAANAAAMIA,
IAANAADPJE,
IAANAADPJF,
IAANAADPJD,
IAANAAEAHA,
IAANAAEAGO,
IAANAAEAGM,
IAANAAEAGP,
IAANAAEAGN,
IAANAPECGC,
IAANAPEFMI,
IAANAPEJBA,
IAANAPEHGN,
IAANAPEJKA,
IAANAPEJKC
At 10:06 27/04/98 -0400, Micah Roberts wrote:
>Oh yeah - I forgot to mention that the insertion sort algorithm I posted
>earlier makes at MOST n-1 passes through the array (where n is the
>number of array elements). Since you are sorting each set of elements
>for each observation this should have significant performance advantages
>in base SAS over the other techniques posted.
Micah, I personally wouldn't be too quick to make that assumpting. In
programming terms, the method I posted using the ORDINAL function makes only
one pass through the array. The question, then, relates to how efficient is
the implicit sort involved in the ORDINAL function - one hopes that it uses
something rapid, probably a 'quick sort', which may well mean that my method
is faster, overall, that the method using an explicit 'insertion sort'. If
I get a chance, I'll run a comparison!
Regards
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: medisci@powernet.com
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK mediscience@compuserve.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Recipient: RPATERSO.DVSEMAIL @ QEDI2
