On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:09 +1000, Matthew Brecknell wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the problem, since any operation that touches all the
> elements of a n-by-n matrix will be at least O(n^2). For such an
> operation, a transposition should just add a constant factor.
What I was hoping for was a dat
it seems unlikely to me that this would cause a degradation in
performance with respect to lists...
that might depend on the number of operations per transposition, i guess.
lists and explicit transpositions make it very obvious what is going on in
terms of
iteration order, so i would be tem
Claus Reinke wrote:
>> When you tried using Arrays, I presume you used an array indexed by a
>> pair (i,j), and just reversed the order of the index pair to switch from
>> row-wise to column-wise access? It's hard to see how that would slow you
>> down. Perhaps the slowdown was caused by excessive
When you tried using Arrays, I presume you used an array indexed by a
pair (i,j), and just reversed the order of the index pair to switch from
row-wise to column-wise access? It's hard to see how that would slow you
down. Perhaps the slowdown was caused by excessive array copying?
the difference
Matthew Brecknell wrote:
> Ivan Miljenovic:
>
>> As such, I'd like to know if there's any way of storing a an n-by-n
>> matrix such that the algorithm/function to get either the rows or the
>> columns is less than O(n^2) like transposition is. I did try using an
>> Array, but my (admittedly hur
Ivan Miljenovic:
> As such, I'd like to know if there's any way of storing a an n-by-n
> matrix such that the algorithm/function to get either the rows or the
> columns is less than O(n^2) like transposition is. I did try using an
> Array, but my (admittedly hurried and naive) usage of them took l
