Re: [boost] [SORT] Parallel Algorithms

Subject: Re: [boost] [SORT] Parallel Algorithms
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-25 04:43:10

On March 24, 2015 10:32:35 PM EDT, Steven Ross <spreadsort_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> >    TimSort                           -> 2M
[snip]

> Timsort seems fairly impressive, but specialized and already available
> for
> free, hence not necessary to include in the library.

While "specialized" may be sufficient grounds to avoid including Timsort, its availability elsewhere for free is not a good justification for excluding it from Boost.

Providing a single source of good, varied algorithms, with equivalent documentation including comparative information to help users choose among the options would seem more than ample reason to include an algorithm.

I realize that the more algorithms you include, the greater your documentation and maintenance burden, so you may still choose to reject Timsort on such grounds. I just didn't want you to dismiss it too quickly.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)