List indexes relating to different paths lists


I looked for answers in the forum for my questions, but unfortunately I couldn’t solve them by myself.

I have a situation as follows:

I have several curves, rectangles per se. Deconstructing its segments (4 segments), I extract the length values of X and Y, in all polylines referenced initially.

Polyline values target:

My goal would be to sort each polyline through text tags, for example, C1, C2, C3… within each X/Y values. However, there will possibly be polylines with the same values of X and Y, and these need to receive the same text tag, then the same tag would be repeated in the curves referenced with the same situation (equal to X and Y).

My primary result:

I was able (perhaps not in a better way) to create a true / false mask by relating the X and Y values of similar polylines.

My current problem is to extract these similar values ​​through the index of the original list of curves (since the indexes of the X and Y values ​​do not match the indexes of the subsequent lists) and use the text tag of the original polyline in their similar alike.

Lists obtained for understanding:

My goal should be something like this:

(Where was put (C1,C2) turns -> (C1 only, because it’s the same), (C3,C7) -> (C2)… etc.

In advance thank you for any help.

Peripheral Memory Calculation.3dm (79.3 KB)
Peripheral Memory (17.6 KB)

This could be one way.

Peripheral Memory (21.2 KB)

…Or just comparing areas of rectangles.

Peripheral Memory (23.0 KB)


You made it simple in a brilliant way.
I’ll study how you did it, but it’s fantastic! Thank you so much!

In way of comparing areas, in my case it would not work, because the area may be the same, but the proportions between X and Y may vary. In my case, I really need to compare the segments of the curves instead of the area.

Again, thakyou!


I noticed that you are using the newer version of Grasshopper (1.0.0007). That gave me an error message. I believe I cant download this version.

So, what component is missing?
Would it be possible to open the definition regardless of the version difference?

Actually I dont know, apparently none. But I thought I’d better tell. I dont know if there are any losses between version 0.9 and version 1.0. Anyway it’s possible to open it normally.