5 ms·
I see Tarjan cited but no Sedgewick, or CLRS. I'm against obsequious citations, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt that these aren't needed.
by russfink 8y ago
I see Tarjan cited but no Sedgewick, or CLRS. I'm against obsequious citations, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt that these aren't needed.
- bonzini 8y agoIsn't CLRS mostly a secondary source that puts together previous literature? Citations usually prefer a primary source that lets you place a "discovery" accurately in date and place (aka conference/journal).
- thrower123 8y agoCLRS is wildly overrated; it's got a lot of odd gaps in the data structures that it does cover, and wastes a lot of time and space on esoteric junk.