Subject: Re: [boost] [SORT] Parallel Algorithms
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-25 06:05:39
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Rob Stewart <rob.stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Sure, if a Timsort library author wishes to volunteer to include it in
boost, I'll add it.