Prev: Questions about my Parallel Sort Library...
Next: on complexity [Was: on goto]
From: Nick Keighley on 11 May 2010 03:48
On 10 May, 19:05, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> James Dow Allen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well at least Heathfield and Seebs agree on *something*:
> > We seek human cognitive advantage.
>
> Actually, I think Seebs and I agree on a great deal. This happens to be
> something about which we mostly disagree, but even then we can find
> small but significant areas of agreement, if we look hard enough.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Mr. Heathfield, IIRC, hasn't actually deigned to post an alternative.
>
> I'm reasonably sure I did deign to post an alternative. But I may not
> have done. I may merely have posted an alternative.
>
> To save me finding it, however, I'll very quickly and no doubt
> erroneously reconstruct it:
>
> found = 0;
> for(x = 0; !found && x < xlim; x++)
> {
>    for(y = 0; !found && y < ylim; y++)
>    {
>      for(z = 0; !found && z < zlim; z++)
>      {
>        if(haystack[x][y][z] == needle)
>        {
>          point_assign(p, x, y, z);
>          found = 1;
>        }
>      }
>    }}
>
> return found;
>
> Laugh away, sirrah! :-)
>
> <snip>
>
> > Hope this helps,
>
> Yup. Style arguments are always fun.

both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in
a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity.



From: Richard Heathfield on 11 May 2010 04:29
Nick Keighley wrote:
<snip>

> both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in
> a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity.

McCabe, by any chance?

If so, how does the visual rep of the code come out? Which *looks* simpler?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Questions about my Parallel Sort Library...
Next: on complexity [Was: on goto]