3 ms·
I understand that lazyness could make it only sort as much as needed to get the first element in the sorted list. Yes, it's triggers my Rainman instincts to po
by Flow 16y ago
I understand that lazyness could make it only sort as much as needed to get the first element in the sorted list.
Yes, it's triggers my Rainman instincts to point out that
1. It should be max = last . sort
2. Or min = head . sort
3. You are making assumptions on the sorting algorithm to make it possible to short-cut the evaluation.
K-MART! K-MART! :)
Edit: How nice of you to downvote...
- loewenskind 16y agoIt wasn't me who downvoted. I can't (since you responded to me) and wouldn't have anyway. If you use last then that means the whole list will have to be sorted O(n log n ish) then the last element retrieved. And yes, I'm assuming a merge sort. But I still don't think that detracts too much from my point.
- Flow 16y agoCould you please s/max/min/ in your first post?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- loewenskind 16y agoBut it depends on the sort algorithm. In the exercise I did this on (in Ocaml with some custom lazy code, since Ocaml's wasn't lazy enough for what I was doing) I did sort in descending order.
- Flow 16y agoAre you saying you made a sort function that sorts reversed, and named it sort? What's wrong with sortDesc? I think you should be more careful with following conventions. Everyone knows sort sorts ascending.
- loewenskind 16y agoConceded. But I can't edit my original comment now. :(