On 8/26/2011 8:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I would only agree as long as it wasn't too much worse
than O(1). O(log n) might be all right, but O(n) would be
unacceptable, I think.
It also depends a lot on *actual* measured performance
Amen. Some regard O(n*n) sorts to be, by definition, 'worse' than
O(n*logn). I even read that in an otherwise good book by a university
professor. Fortunately for Python users, Tim Peters ignored that
'wisdom', coded the best O(n*n) sort he could, and then *measured* to
find out what was better for what types and lengths of arrays. So not we
have a list.sort that sometimes beats the pure O(nlog) quicksort of C
libraries.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
