*Arrays can be quirky in 2e

Hiya,

I have just become aware that *Arrays do not support the correct ordering sequence for negative index values. This has been referred to CA Support (2nd Level) for investigation.

My scenario is an array that is ordered based on a difference between two values. For the purposes of a meaningful example lets pretend that our array is a league table for the English football premier league (Soccer to some). If your game is rugby or another sport then you can draw your own comparisons.

The scenario is that after 2 games of the season I have 5 teams on 4 points. These teams are place 1 to 5 on the table. Let's further embelish this example and assume that my team, Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) are at the top. :-)

Team	Points	GD (Goal Difference)
Tottenham	4pts	+78
Liverpool	4pts	+5
Everton	4pts	0
Wigan	4pts	-4
Chelsea	4pts	-8
......
Arsenal	0pts	-78

Apart from the obvious good start by Wigan and the strange GD for two games. I believe the example table to be a fair reflection of the real world. With Tottenham at the top. COYS. Blue and White army. Stand up if you hate Arsenal.

If I were to create an *array in DESCENDING order with the keys of Points and GD. My array would sort itself as follows:-

Team	Points	GD (Goal Difference)
Tottenham	4pts	+78
Liverpool	4pts	+5
Everton	4pts	0
Chelsea	4pts	-8
Wigan	4pts	-4
......
Arsenal	0pts	-78

The arrays doesn't handle the negative sign and although it preserves the negative sign it is unable to sort it. Note the order of Chelsea and Wigan.

Until this is fixed, a simple workaround I have used is to *ADD an arbitary figure to the GD to ensure it is a positive value. In order not to blow a limit (as over a season a team can be -100) I need to cater for a higher number so I chose 10,000 for the *array as an offset.

At the point of display which happens to be a DSPFIL I simply deduct 10,000. Simple workaround. Hopefully, simple solution that will be fixed some time in the future. Another option which I contribute to my colleague Chris Koloszar is to do the 10,000 offset for the key and leave the original value as an attribute of the array also.

My main concern is for those of you that have negative values but have yet to discover them.

I will post updates as I hear back from CA.

Thanks for reading.
Lee.

UPDATE HISTORY
==============

2:54pm (Same Day). I have had some quick responses from CA (Very impressed - Thanks Lynn). CA claim this to be working as designed. I am countering that it is a bug and was designed incorrectly. I hope that this will be fixed and I will keep you all updated.

What do you think?

Next Day - Referred to development not a trivial fix but I am confident it will be a good look over. Thanks.