Re: A question: Is 200,000 element array worth sorting and search?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> CBFalconer said:
> > Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>> CBFalconer said:
> >>>>
.... snip ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>    for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {
> >>>>
> >>>> Rookie error...
> >>>>
> >>>>>       if (a[i] == item) break;
> >>>>>    }
> >>>>>    if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;
> >>>>
> >>>> ...repeated.
> >>>
> >>> You didn't think.  This was deliberate, since as I read it the
> >>> original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].
.... snip ...
> 
> No, the point is that the code you published was *wrong*.
> 
> > If a[200000] in inaccessible the coding is simpler.
> 
> Which is why everyone is so puzzled that you got it wrong.
> 
> Well, we all make mistakes - but when people point out your mistake,
it's
> not wise to start firing off accusations at them, such as "you didn't
> think". It is true that someone wasn't thinking, but that someone isn't
> the someone you thought it was.

What's the error?  My code handles an array whose last member is
indexed by 200000.  The finalize stuff allows for the same max. 
Yes, the code can be simpler, so what?  The point was the O(n)
operation of the simple loop.

I have no objection to admitting errors.  This is not one.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**