On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Florent Hivert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi There, > >> > During the review of http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7364, >> > Florent Hivert mentionned it could be a great idea to add a >> > "complexity" note in all of our algorithms, and some informations >> > about optimality if known ( or even approximations if available, etc >> > ... ). What do you think of it, and what would you think of such >> > information as "required" before giving a positive review to patches ? >> >> I'm strongly against requiring this, but certainly for encouraging it >> and establishing a good format. > > +1 > > As indicated in my review, it was not at all my idea to *require* it. But It > is undoubtedly a valuable information... I'm trying to hire a student to do > this job for all the basic method throughout combinat. We started to do this > more or less systematically in MuPAD before the switch to sage. See for > examples: > > http://mupad-combinat.sourceforge.net/doc/en/combinat/permutations.html > > My (obvious) suggestion is to add at the end of a function doc (close to > reference) a section e.g.: > > ALGORITHM: > > - modified merge sort algorithm. The complexity ``O(n * ln(n))`` is > optimal however it has a bad constant time factor. We therefore use a > naive method for ``n <= 27``. > > > REFERENCES: > > - ... > > AUTHORS: > > - ... > > Do you think about something even more structured ?
That's a good example. I wonder if LaTeX typesetting would be nicer, e.g. `O(n\ln(n))` and `n\leq 27`? William -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
