Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > just using it to do things the right > > number of times without operating on the array -- and here, > > not even the right number of times, just a generous upper > > bound. > > Not always that generous; in fact, it's the smallest upper bound > possible without knowing in advance the size of the largest > anagram set. I think there's always at least one wasted iteration. If you have $n words that are all anagrams of each other, then it requires $n - 1 iterations to replace all the medial newlines. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC
