24-Apr-2013 01:09, Ivan Kazmenko пишет:
And on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 01:10:26 UTC, Xinok wrote:
I filed a bug report for this issue a year ago:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7767
I've been meaning to fix this issue myself. Time allowing, I'll do it
soon.
What I wonder now, what would be the goal of such a fix?
One possible goal would be to have an O(n log n) worst case sort. And
that would perhaps cost some speed and/or memory on average. Besides,
such a sort function is already implemented (TimSort), so it's just a
matter of setting the default then.
A good unstable sort can do the job faster (at the very least not
slower) then a good stable sort.
I'm looking forward to a version of Introsort that Xinok has in mind as
a "Q-sort fix".
--
Dmitry Olshansky
