>>>>>>>>>>Thanks to all (Dragan, Marcia and Tore). I wonder which solution is the fastest?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Since you have all the code, why don't you test all the solutions and let us know?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(Edit: This reply is for Yossi)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think Dranag's solution is the fastest and optimal, because analyze the string only once and using the minimal instruction set.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Imagine tcBig 650KB long with 10000 "A": the check will be done 10000 times,
>>>>>>>>If the "A" is at the end of the resulting string, will take longer ;-)))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are right, and I didn't saw Marcia's algorithm that is excelent!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the testing results of the 3 algorithms in my PC with a 50000 chars string:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- Dragan: 52.5 secs and maintain the original order
>>>>>>>- Tore: 30.9 secs and doesn't maintain original order (order is alphabetical because SQL)
>>>>>>>- Marcia: 1.4 secs and maintain the original order => WINNER!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Congrats Marcia! :D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hmmm, Is it too late to enter the compiteition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

FUNCTION NonDupe(cString)
>>>>>>LOCAL cNewStr 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>cNewStr =""
>>>>>>DO WHILE LEN(cString) > 0
>>>>>>	cNewStr = cNewStr + LEFT(cString,1)
>>>>>>	cString = STRTRAN(cString, LEFT(cString,1))
>>>>>>ENDDO
>>>>>>RETURN cNewStr
>>>>>>ENDFUNC

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is shorter and faster than Marcia's alghorithm by 40% in my testing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But all are nothing compared when you've got some C++ code working for you.
>>>>>>The FoxTools.fll contains a function REDUCE() which is extremely fast on eliminating characters from a string.
>>>>>>It has been written to reduce spaces but has a different role for other characters. It will remove them and replace with spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The following alghorith does not not work for detecting the space as a separate character, but if you're only concerned with non-space characters the following is about a 100 times faster than Marcia's routine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

FUNCTION NonDupe3(cString)
>>>>>>LOCAL cNewStr 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>cNewStr =""
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DO WHILE LEN(cString) > 0
>>>>>>	cNewStr = cNewStr + LEFT(cString,1)
>>>>>>	cString = LTRIM(REDUCE(cString, LEFT(cString,1)))
>>>>>>ENDDO
>>>>>>RETURN cNewStr
>>>>>>ENDFUNC

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Walter,
>>>>>
>>>>>How is your entry competitive? You haven't done your own work, just refactored Marcia's entry. Easy to change what's been done rather than come up with a method yourself.
>>>>
>>>>John, How can be an entry of close to a 100x times faster, not be competitive?
>>>>
>>>>And no, my strategy is different: a cross between dragans and marcias... put on your glasses.
>>>>On second look mine is just a minor variation on what Thomas wrote. However, I did not see that one (nor you) before I wrote mine.
>>>>And I did not see anyone bring up REDUCE() in foxtools, did you?
>>>>
>>>>Boy you really have a problem with Dutch windmills huh?
>>>
>>>Your solution was identical to Marcia including the names, with the addition of 1 new command. Great Work.. You and Naomi win the prize for developerhood...
>>
>>Lets see:
>>
>>Marcia's solution;
>>
>>

>>FUNCTION NonDupe(tcString)
>>LOCAL lcNewString, lnI, lnLen, lcChar
>>lcNewString = tcString
>>lnLen = LEN(tcString)
>>lnI = 1
>>DO WHILE lnI < lnLen
>>	lcChar = SUBSTR(lcNewString, lnI, 1)
>>	IF OCCURS(lcChar, lcNewString) > 0
>>		lcNewString = STRTRAN(lcNewString, lcChar, '', 2, -1, 2)
>>		lnLen = LEN(lcNewString)
>>	ENDIF 
>>	lnI = lnI + 1 
>>ENDDO 
>>RETURN lcNewString

>>
>>
>>My solution:
>>

>>FUNCTION NonDupe(cString)
>>LOCAL cNewStr 
>> 
>>cNewStr =""
>>DO WHILE LEN(cString) > 0
>>	cNewStr = cNewStr + LEFT(cString,1)
>>	cString = LTRIM(REDUCE(cString, LEFT(cString,1)))
>>ENDDO
>>RETURN cNewStr
>>ENDFUNC

>>
>>Marcia used 13 lines of code, I 7. Marcia, used only 1 string to do the work. I used 2. Performance difference, 2 orders of magnitude.
>>Marcia used SUBSTR(), OCCURS(), STRTRAN(), I used LTRIM(), LEFT() and REDUCE()
>>Yep, really identical, john...
>>
>>So where is your contribution John? You sound like the other john... a lot of bla bla bla, but not ever shown any competence in programming, unlike Naomi you only excel in cowardly trolling. Is that what you are John?
>>
>>Awaiting your apologies. Lets see whether you've gut the guts...
>
>How do you explain the same names? BTW, I haven't written fox code in nearly 10 years. So I have no example to show.

Taking a look at another example and writing a solution with the similar names adds to the ability to compare them.
But it does not take a genius to see that the interior coding is different. If you can't read that because you lost the ability to read foxcode, you'd better stay silent.

So... do you have the guts? Still waiting for the apology.