"in" everywhere

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:23:47 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/7/2010 13:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/7/10 14:40 CDT, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Another solution is just to accept O(n) as the worst complexity for
>>>> the "in" operator. I don't understand what's the problem in this.
>>>
>>> That means we'd have to define another operation, i.e. "quickIn" that
>>> has O(log n) bound.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> I can't say I've ever cared about the big-O complexity of an operation.
> 
> Then you don't understand how important it is.

	If big O complexity is so important, then why does everyone use
quicksort (which is O(n**2)) and not heap sort or merge sort (which
are O(n*log(n)))?

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101008/5696ed2d/attachment.pgp>