Follow-up Comment #4, bug #37130 (project gnustep):
I can see the argument for wanting an in place merge sort there. The reason I
chose not to do that was because an in-place merge sort is slower
O(n*log(n)^2) in the worst case, though the extra allocation and copying may
offset that. I can't say I benchmarked both solutions, so it may be that
doing it in-place is in fact fast enough, and consumes significantly less RAM
for large arrays.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37130>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
