Chris Stephenson wrote:
But, on the other hand, O(log n) is, for most practical purposes, very close to O(1), so why worry?
Because we're not consistent about when we worry and when we don't. This thread, for example, is mostly about logarithmic factors. And we wouldn't accept a statement like "Sorting n numbers takes O(n) time". But we ask our students to implement in, say, C++, where it's obvious that log n <= 32 or 64, and bit-twiddling tricks that are hard to resist fall outside the rules, really. Working in a purely functional language delays these issues, thankfully. --PR
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
