[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Z. Malde) writes: > for 90K values to sort, I get 7M string comparisons and 321M integer
..and with different parameters giving 127K values, ie. a factor of 1.4, I get 12M and 614M comparisons, *very* close to the expected O(nē) behavior of insertion sort. >> The default definition of sortBy uses insertion sort > I have vague recollection of the wisdom of this choice being > questioned And now I think I'm about question it as well... -kzm (writing his own O(n log n) sortBy as we speak) -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
