2013/10/5 Rob <robpill...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:45:56PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote: >> 2013/10/4 Raphaël Proust <raphla...@gmail.com>: >> If we want to retain this patch, I'd suggest reversing array after >> sorting, not multiplying by `sortorder' in comparison functions. This >> avoids code duplication. > > I disagree - rather than adding a sort call and changing the program's > runtime complexity, can't we just reduce the amount of lines _and_ > duplication like this: Reversing an array we just sorted isn't adding complexity, it's O(n) adding to O(n log n).
- [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls: add option to revers... Markus Teich
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls: add option ... sin
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls: add opt... Alexander S.
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls: add... Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls:... Markus Teich
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls: add... Raphaël Proust
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls:... Alexander S.
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH... Markus Teich
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH... Rob
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [P... Markus Teich
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [P... Alexander S.
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls:... Nick
- Re: [dev] [sbase] [PATCH] ls:... Thorsten Glaser