Speaking of which, what's wrong with the standard library function for producing permutations? They're not produced in the order you want them in?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > >
