On Nov 26, 1:40 pm, "Miroslav Balaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is too slow, i replied with better solution , bu i dont know how this > forum works. >
I was looking for comments on correctness, not efficency. As I said, it can be improved. By quite a bit, actually. As for your 'better solution', if you are referring to the one paragraph blurb on row-major order, there's not enough information there to judge what your algorithm would look like in the end, let alone judge speed in comparison. Personally, I'd probably replace the cover function with Knuth's dancing links algorithm. ---- Geoff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
