Ok - simply put, we could have done this with functions in cells, but we
would have had to take a very long trip through the woods to get to where we
wanted to be. The code solution was, in my opinion, easiest to implement.
But I could have done some things to make it a little better even.

By being generic, I mean it works for any group of text in a cell, not just
the types of entries you had. It is independent of length of the groups in a
cell even. Try typing in "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" in a
cell and running the code against that cell. :-)

"David" wrote:

> Have to say that that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Double dutch?
> Anyway, thanks again. Only fault is that it would have been perfect had it
> ordered by number as well [not just by anything that began with '1'.
>
> --
> David Kitching Msc. Msc.
> Managing Director
> Natural Deco Ltd.
> The Manor
> Manor Lane
> Loxley
> Warwickshire CV35 9JX
> UK.
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1789 470040
> Mob: +44 (0) 7799 118518
> www.naturaldeco.co.uk
>
> "JLatham" <JLatham@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D7167E00-F1D6-495D-8D33-38EDDD9C3D76@microsoft.com...
> > You're welcome. Excel is easy to use. Just some things that don't have
> > built in functions to solve. This actually could have been done on a
> > worksheet using some of the text parsing functions people have built and
> > then
> > using the Data | Sort feature and then concatenating the results back into
> > a
> > string. But that would have been a lot more manual work for you. Having
> > a
> > variable number of state IDs in the cells was also something that I
> > thought
> > about and it would have complicated the worksheet solution.
> >
> > By the way, that is a very generic solution. It would work on any text
> > contained in a single cell, including variable length strings like perhaps
> > a
> > list of names or colors or such. I think that it could be improved by
> > coding
> > up a different sort, say a heap or shell sort, but for short lists, the
> > simple bubble works fine enough.
> >
> > "David" wrote:
> >
> >> Wow. And here I was thinking that Excel was easy to use. But I've pasted
> >> this code into the VB [takes me back] editor and run it, all in the
> >> correct
> >> manner purely by fluke, and it worked fantastically. Thank you.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>