On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 01:53, Nas Bayedil <nbaye...@gmail.com> wrote: > We believe that using this method to develop completely new, fast > algorithms, approaching the speed of the famous *QuickSort*, the speed of > which cannot be surpassed, but its drawback can be circumvented, in the > sense of stack overflow, on some data.
Hmm, actually TimSort *does* exceed the speed of quicksort for a lot of real-world data. For instance, if you take a large sorted list, append a handful of (unsorted) items to it, and then sort the list, TimSort can take advantage of the fact that the bulk of the list is sorted. It ends up significantly faster than re-sorting the entire list. How well does your new variant handle this case? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
