Re: [boost] Proposed templated integer_sort

From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-06 18:27:24

I've attached a fully functional revision that only has a 9% speed penalty
from using randomaccessiterator types instead of directly using pointers (as
opposed to 15% before).  std::sort has a 6% penalty in my tests, so 9%
doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  The only additional modifications I'm
considering making at this point is whatever formatting Boost requires
(where's the best place to look that up?).
The question is: is this code sufficiently useful, fast, and easy to use to
include in Boost?  I think it is because of its speedup across many
different data types and usage of only >> and <, but I'm looking for input.
If this is accepted, I can add versions that accept a functor, float_sort,
and string_sort, but I'd like to go through the acceptance process with just
this simpler code, so I know exactly what to do with the others.

Steve