I meant insertionsort.
On 6/28/2008 12:38 AM, André Bargull wrote:
I see. But at least we could consider to improve the merge-sort, e.g.
for small instances you can use selectionsort/insertionsort (I always
confuse them with each other), to avoid recursion and creation of
1-length array objects etc.
On 6/28/2008 12:20 AM, P T Withington wrote:
Be careful. Array#sort is not stable. I think we have our own sort
because we want a stable sort. Also, I think Adam got the sign of the
sort result backwards from the built-in, so you would have to
compensate for that even if you gave up stability.
Perhaps add a comment to the code for future archaeologists.
On Jun 27, 2008, at 16:23, André Bargull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about to file as an improvement-request at Jira, so it doesn't
get lost?
- André
On 5/8/2008 4:32 PM, André Bargull wrote:
Please just remove it, that's a standard merge-sort without any
adjustments, so Array#sort(..) should be much faster.
I just found this method. Do we still think that a Javascript
sort method is needed? How could it possibly be as fast as the
built-in Array#sort method?
