On 27-Sep-1999, S.D.Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- C++ -
...
int condition2 (vectorlong x)
{int i = 0;
while ( i 20x[i]==9-i ) i++;
That has undefined behaviour, since your vector `x' only has length 10,
not 20.
I
On 27-Sep-1999, D. Tweed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One small comment is that in your functions condition1 condition2 I
think most C++ programmers would say that you want to write
int condition1 (const vectorlong x)
since otherwise the compiler generally has to obey the normal function
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.D.Mechveliani) wrote,
As to me, i still agree to pay 17 times for the functionality.
But is the test all right, what people think?
And he compared the Haskell program with the C++ program that uses
the next_permutation function.
If you don't know the implementation of
To my letter on the Cryptarithm test
(proposed by Mark Engelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
[..]
As to me, i still agree to pay 17 times for the functionality.
But is the test all right, what people think?
And he compared the Haskell program with the C++ program that uses
the next_permutation
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:
Personally I'd
always write the above, not so much for performance reasons as the fact
that if the objects in the vector have a shallow copy constructor
(generated automatically silently) but a destructor that deallocates
resources you've
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
Now it shows the ratio * 6 *.
[snip]
But this mess with platforms and versions, is not, probably, so
important, because people can compile and run this program in their
own environments - and correct the performance result.
What do you
