Search:
Type: Posts; User: Bassman
Search:
Search took 0.05 seconds.
-
January 20th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Sam,
What definition of sort makes this correct (and the poster you replied to incorrect) and what is your justification for the definition? Specifically, why does your definition vary from...
-
January 20th, 2004, 03:57 PM
You probably should.
(Binary tree sort)
Regards,
Bassman
-
January 20th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Also, Sam, I should point out that my main issue here is simply that:
Building a binary/AVL tree == Sorting an unsorted array == O(n log n)
So the act of arranging the items in a logical order...
-
January 20th, 2004, 03:15 PM
If you consider it so insignificant, why are you taking the trouble to post it to a new thread?
What in particular is the specific problem with saying that inserting a group of items into a binary...
-
January 20th, 2004, 01:40 PM
And my point was that a 'separate sort' and 'building a sorted list' are algorithmically and functionally equivalent. Both perform a sort operation.
So it's correct to say that data can not be...
-
January 19th, 2004, 11:32 PM
To sort - to arrange; to put into a specific order or relation.
You disagree on this definition? Why impede communication with your peers by making up your own definition of words? That's awfully...
-
January 19th, 2004, 01:43 PM
I disagree. Data must be explicitly sorted to be displayed in a conceptual 'order'.
Inserting a group of items into a binary tree explicitly sorts the items.
The sort is just distributed over n...
-
November 21st, 2003, 11:53 AM
Oh, of course nobody wants this to turn into a 'witch-hunt,' as you so eloquently put it. There's nothing to hunt - it's completely obvious you were being a doofus.
Sarcasm
{
Thank you so much...
-
November 12th, 2003, 02:08 PM
Like anything else, the use of exceptions is fraught with debate and it's closer to a religious argument than it is to an objective cost-benefit analysis.
In this article specifically, the...
-
November 12th, 2003, 11:10 AM
My two cents: I used to do this, but now I generally don't like to do this, because it breaks the RAII idiom that I've grown so fond of. Not only that, but it's almost always unneccesary.
...
-
October 22nd, 2003, 11:01 AM
No, as long as you call
pA1 = pA2->m_pA1;
before
-
October 22nd, 2003, 10:46 AM
Not neccessarily true.
Dereferencing pa2 will naturally fail, but:
classA1* pA1 = pA2->m_pA1;
delete pA2;
pA1->DoSomething();
-
October 8th, 2003, 03:47 PM
Hmmm.... when I wrote that, I disremembered myself into thinking that the structure only pads the end of the structure to stay aligned, but of course you're right - there's no guarantees.
And like...
-
October 8th, 2003, 12:51 PM
No, you could do a really ugly trick.
char *pString = "12345612345678123412";
myStruct* pStruct = reinterpret_cast<myStruct*>(pString);
Then use pStruct->sFirstParam, etc.
However,...
-
October 8th, 2003, 12:40 PM
Inside Philip's loop
T item = *it;
-
August 21st, 2003, 03:41 PM
Just to beat the dead horse,
(111111111 % 65536) = 27591
so your code is correct to the precision of an unsigned 16-bit integer. Like Phillip said, if you want more than 65535, you should use...
-
August 8th, 2003, 01:08 PM
Before you start researching implementation techniques, you need to know exactly what it is going to do, and exactly how you want people to use it. Otherwise, you're just yelling in the wind.
Is...
-
I know for certain that many compilers will optimize tail recursion into an iterative solution.
(Briefly) Tail recursion means that there are no operations after the recursive call - and that kind...
-
Your question is strange... As has been pointed out, a linked list by definition uses pointers - so what is it exactly that you're trying to accomplish and why?
Regards,
Bassman
-
Just to add to the discussion,
grp = new char [sizeof (penv) + 1];
makes me think you really want to do:
grp = new char [strlen(penv) + 1];
-
Yeah, sorry, my fault - I shouldn't be such a boob. Like I said, I'm grumpy today. Stupid COM objects...
:)
Peace,
Bassman
-
Doctor Luz said:
... and later ...
(flip/flop)
-
(Taking the piss) What's there to argue about?
n! is defined as Gamma(n + 1) for all complex numbers > 0. For positive integers, n! is also defined as n * n-1 * n-2 * ... * 3 * 2.
And BTW, you...
-
I thought he was full of s*, too (no offense, man), so I googled and found,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Factorial.html
Check out (7).
AAAIAIAIAGH!!! INTEGRALS SCARY!!!! AIGH!!
Peace,...
-
April 24th, 2003, 11:43 PM
No, I meant just the printing code - like this:
void triangle(ostream& outs, int m, int n){
int i;
for(i=0;i<m;i++)
outs << "*";
cout << endl;
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|