I tried sort!(sub(p,fp:length(p))) but it any faster. I suspect that if you want to keep with the general shape of this code, it gets kind of verbose. You can probably do something that's different and much more efficient though – similar to what the standard library does.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ivar Nesje <[email protected]> wrote: > >> P.S. I have tried using in-place >> sort!(p[fp:end]) >> rather than >> p[fp:end] = sort(p[fp:end]) >> but it does not do what I expected. >> > > The thing here is quite subtle, but the problem is that currently > p[fp:end] returns a copy, rather than a reference. This will change in 0.4, > but there are still lots of discussion needed on some of the subtleties, so > that we don't do too many iterations before getting it right. > > I think you can get it now, by writing: > > sort!(sub(p,fp:length(p))) > > Regards Ivar >
