Thanks for improved code. My point was to measure which programming patterns are faster than the others so I can learn which ones I should use. However, the thing that is really bad is the fact, that even oneliner qsort_i is faster than library sort. Which is very different from what I've expected. My intuition is only best and fastest code goes to library, to the point that people can learn from it. It seems I was mislead.
> It could probably be improved (with classics solution (better > selection of the pivot...)), but the mergesort is only 3 times slower > in worse case, and much more regular, if someone needs a faster sort > in a specific case, it isn't hard to code. > > -- > Jedaï >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
