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
> Timsort seems fairly impressive, but specialized and already available
> 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.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk