In article <ujiV4WqnKHA.4512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bob I wrote:
> Are you sure it wouldn't be the following?
>
> Highest
> Higher
> High
>
> Steve Rindsberg wrote:
> > High.
> > Higher.
> > Highest.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Depends on which way you read it.
If top to bottom, I like mine. Higher's higher than high, so follows
it, just as 10's > 9 so in ascending order:
1
...
8
9
10
That satisfies the logical half of the brain.
Aesthetically, I like your way. Thought of it first, in fact, but then
the other half of the brain jumped over the fence and stomped on that
idea.