From: Ben Bear (benbearchen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-26 08:41:12
Philip: Yeah, I think our methods are same. Well, the unselected
elements are sorted makes the algorithm easy to be implemented and
Sorry, I don't know what's parallel index array ;-( I read the
defination of "Parallel array" in wikipedia... Does it like iterator
2007/12/24, Philip Garofalo <philgarofalo_at_[hidden]>:
> Hello Ben and Herve, I'm not sure if you already know but there's a previous
> submission for combinations and permutations (mine) in the sequence_algo
> folder of the sandbox. In fact, Herve helped out! :-) I've been away from it
> for five years. Check out the discussion thread in the
> archives. Nevertheless, I like your implementation. It's interesting that
> you chose a sorting method similar to mine, instead of using a parallel
> index array.
> Phil Garofalo
> On Dec 23, 2007 7:38 PM, Ben Bear <benbearchen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Sorry. I had lost too many times.
> > 2007/12/6, Hervé Brönnimann <hervebronnimann_at_[hidden]>:
> > > http://photon.poly.edu/~hbr/boost/combination.hpp
> > My test showed that a bug exists in prev_mapping(). The last sentence
> > of prev_mapping() should be "return false;", but not "return true;".
> > Date of the tested combination.hpp is 2007-12-6.
> > I'll put my test tonight. It mainly test the increment/decrement of
> > the sequences and the returned flags.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk