Message40673
Logged In: YES
user_id=31435
Replaced the doc file. The new one contains more info
comparing msort to sort. There's nothing more I want to do
here, and it looks like everyone who might time this already
did.
Assigned to Guido for pronouncement. I recommend
replacing list.sort() with this. The only real downside is the
potential for requiring 2*N temp bytes; that (and everything
else <wink>) is discussed in the doc file.
If this is accepted, another issue is whether to *advertise*
that this sort is stable. Some people really want that, but
requiring stability constrains implementations. Another
possibility is to give lists two sort methods, one
guaranteed stable and the other not, where in 2.3 CPython
both map to this code.
In no case do I want to keep both the samplesort and
timsort implementations in the core -- one brain-busting
sort implementation is quite enough. This one has many
wonderful properties the samplesort hybrid lacks. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2007-08-23 15:14:17 | admin | link | issue587076 messages |
2007-08-23 15:14:17 | admin | create | |
|