On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: >> this may or may not be a problem, but It doesn't feel right, even for (a >> pathological) worst case, in a real time context... We ought to have note >> insertion in O(1) (or actually O(lgN) because they get sorted) ?! :-) > > We can add a bisection algorithm, which is considerably faster on a sorted > list.
D'OH!! No we can't. It's a linked list. This is why SeqScript uses the d-pointer. We get get something that _works_ for now (the O(N) implementation). Later, after we get everything else working, we can totally rewrite SeqScriptPrivate -- and nothing else will be affected. (Axiom: "Get it _working_, fast. Then, get it working _fast_.") We can also (later) write isolated tests to see how well it performs. We can also write A/B tests to compare different implementations. For now, I think the priority is to get the interface right. (Schedule by ticks, ticks + ms, ticks + frames, frames, etc.) We won't be able to change those decisions as easily. Peace, Gabriel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Hydrogen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hydrogen-devel
