Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:23:47 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rain...@eldwood.com> > wrote: > >> On 10/7/2010 13:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> On 10/7/10 14:40 CDT, bearophile wrote: >>>> Another solution is just to accept O(n) as the worst complexity for >>>> the "in" operator. I don't understand what's the problem in this. >>> >>> That means we'd have to define another operation, i.e. "quickIn" that >>> has O(log n) bound. >> >> Why? >> >> I can't say I've ever cared about the big-O complexity of an operation. > > Then you don't understand how important it is.
If big O complexity is so important, then why does everyone use
quicksort (which is O(n**2)) and not heap sort or merge sort (which
are O(n*log(n)))?
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
