On 03/17/2013 03:02 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I think that this implementation is a problem. > > Bag implementations tend to fall into different categories, according to > whether they provide unit (or log) time random access, random deletion and > ordered traversal. Most implementations don't provide unit time for all > operations. > > I think that your implementation assumes multiple operations have unit > time. Otherwise sampling all of the items will take quadratic time. > > Also, your implementations alter the underlying collections. That seems > like a bad policy. > > Sampling without replacement can be implemented as iteration over a > permutation with unit amortized time. A trivial implementation uses > an auxiliary array. It is also possible to do without the auxiliary. You > can get unit amortized time for linked list permutations as well, but it is > difficult to do without the extra storage. > > Finally, the names should not consist of combinations of "pick" and > "remit". The correct English terms are "sample" and "replacement".
additionally, I would prefer this feature to be a decorator rather than altering the bag interface for it. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
