On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 09:02:47AM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote: > > That's just not true. Consider the algorithm: > > 1) count the lines in the file [don't retain ANY data --- just scan > > the file and count lines] > > 2) rewind, skip N/2 lines, read the next one > > > > Which is unequivocally O(1) memory and O(n) time. > > Doesn't it rather depend on the size of the line? Or doesn't that > affect the big O for memory?
We're not counting that last "read the next one" part in the memory usage. -- Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One <purl> Hey, Schwern! THERE IS A HUGE GAZORGANSPLATTEDFARTMONGERING- LIGHTENINGBEASTASAURSOPOD BEHIND YOU! RUN, BEFORE IT GAFLUMMOXES YOUR INNARDLYBITS!
