On 30/10/11 10:36 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/30/2011 09:52 AM, Max Wolter wrote:
Hey there.
Thanks for your good work.
I decided to test your xinok sort in my implementation of the A*
algorithm; since the list of open nodes will always be partially sorted,
it should give better performance
Hey there.
Thanks for your good work.
I decided to test your xinok sort in my implementation of the A*
algorithm; since the list of open nodes will always be partially sorted,
it should give better performance than the phobos sort.
/Max
On 10/30/2011 12:19 AM, Xinok wrote:
On 10/29/2011
On 10/30/2011 09:52 AM, Max Wolter wrote:
Hey there.
Thanks for your good work.
I decided to test your xinok sort in my implementation of the A*
algorithm; since the list of open nodes will always be partially sorted,
it should give better performance than the phobos sort.
/Max
You might
On 10/29/2011 1:13 PM, Xinok wrote:
I recently put some time into updating my implementation of xinok sort
for D. Major changes include support for random-access ranges and custom
predicates (ab). You can download the new version here:
I recently put some time into updating my implementation of xinok sort
for D. Major changes include support for random-access ranges and custom
predicates (ab). You can download the new version here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xinoksort/files/D%202.0/2011-10-29/xinoksort.d/download
For
On 10/29/2011 5:53 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Looks good =). Thank you. How does this implementation of your algorithm
compare to the the unstable sort that is currently in Phobos,
performance wise?
I posted some benchmarks here. These benchmarks used the specialized
code for arrays. There would
On 10/30/2011 12:19 AM, Xinok wrote:
On 10/29/2011 5:53 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Looks good =). Thank you. How does this implementation of your algorithm
compare to the the unstable sort that is currently in Phobos,
performance wise?
I posted some benchmarks here. These benchmarks used the
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 01:56:23 +0300, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
You could use catch(Error err) or catch(OutOfMemoryError err) or not
catch the Error at all.
Note that (IIRC) an OutOfMemoryError will be thrown only when:
1) There is no space on the managed heap
2) A garbage collection
On 10/29/2011 7:19 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 01:56:23 +0300, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
You could use catch(Error err) or catch(OutOfMemoryError err) or not
catch the Error at all.
I'll use OutOfMemoryError. If any other error occurs, it's probably best
to
