Subject:
|
Re: Sorting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:31:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2712 times
|
| |
|
|
"Sean M. Kenney" <sean@seankenney.com> writes:
> So for that very reason, why not just sort by BOTH color AND shape?
Yes, but I feel that using too many sorting bins is a waste of space
because there's always going to be a lot of bins that are nearly empty.
And if you have too many bins, you cannot stack them all in front of you
when building, so you need to run back and forth to get the pieces you
need.
So one needs to compromise, and my compromise is to sort by shape (or by
function).
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sorting
|
| (...) The situation you describe needn't be the case. You mention two problems. If empty bin-space is a problem, you are suffering from one of two difficulties. Bins too large for your collection. Or a collection too small for your bins (see my (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-98, to lugnet.storage)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sorting
|
| > Ah, the canonical sorting debate has arisen. There is a camp > (myself among the adherents) that feels that sorting by color > is a total waste of time (except for green :-)). Far more > important to sort by size and type. Yes, yes, we've all (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-98, to lugnet.storage)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
