From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 17:06:06
"E. Gladyshev" <egladysh_at_[hidden]> writes:
> --- David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Please consult any basic textbook on algorithm complexity. No offense
>> intended, but if we can't agree on O(N) == O(k * N), I think we'll
>> never agree on anything and I don't see any point in continuing this
> Of course I are right, I was just teasing sorry.
Oh. I should have a better sense of humor about that, but my time is
so short these days...
> You were paranoid about me using word "behavior"
> I was paranoid about 'k'; technically you should
> have said that k is *independent* of N.
> I liked your "o-n-squared-equals-o-one-ly" proof though.
> I think you and I agree that variant should not have a special
> "first-type switch"?
Yes. However, I prefer that to anything other than "optimizing
whenever an optimization is possible", which is where we may differ.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk