Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
In case this wasn't clear enough: I'm convinced you're heading down the wrong road. This conviction may in itself be wrong in some absolute sense, however, at the moment, I don't think so, and I cannot possibly justify spending more time argueing back and forth about it (and wouldn't want to if I could).
