Re: fast stable sort
- From: Tim Rentsch <txr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Nov 2008 00:30:27 -0800
Mark Wooding <mdw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Tim Rentsch <txr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
About doing a truly in-place mergesort for linked lists -- I don't
think it's conceptually difficult, but (after thinking about how to do
it) I sure wouldn't want to program it. :)
I think Simon Tatham's algorithm seems quite straightforward.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html
It doesn't do anything hairy with the links at all.
I agree, as informal descriptions go, it's not bad. It does tend to
gloss over the mechanics of element counting and handling of limit
cases, which aren't terribly hard to get right but also aren't
terribly hard to get wrong; for this kind of algorithm those kinds
of errors often lead to incomprehensible catastrophic failure.
Despite my insalubrious comment, thank you for the reference (and also
thanks to Richard Harter for his suggestion on this, I forgot to say
that in my earlier message).
.
- References:
- fast stable sort
- From: subramanian100in@xxxxxxxxx, India
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: pete
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: pete
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: fast stable sort
- From: Mark Wooding
- fast stable sort
- Prev by Date: Re: fast stable sort
- Next by Date: Re: fast stable sort
- Previous by thread: Re: fast stable sort
- Next by thread: Re: fast stable sort
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|