Alex Rousskov <[email protected]> writes: > On 01/24/2013 02:46 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > >> In my opinion, using >> a more sensibly priority queue algorithm (still both extremely simple >> to implement and 'readily available' in a canned form), insofar the >> deficiencies of the simple one become actually relevant, makes a lot more >> sense than devising special-case 'workarounds' for these deficiencies >> because it is conjectured that they *might* otherwise become >> relevant. > > I am all for using better queuing algorithms. However,
[...] And I'm all for getting some actual work done instead of this completely pointless discussion.
