Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (04 Sep 2020 17:12 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes John Cowan (05 Sep 2020 03:41 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Fwd: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Sep 2020 07:43 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Sep 2020 09:33 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (06 Sep 2020 17:24 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Sep 2020 17:30 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (06 Sep 2020 17:40 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes John Cowan (06 Sep 2020 20:04 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Sep 2020 20:40 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes John Cowan (07 Sep 2020 00:03 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (07 Sep 2020 06:31 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (07 Sep 2020 15:46 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (07 Sep 2020 20:56 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes John Cowan (07 Sep 2020 21:16 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (07 Sep 2020 21:57 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (08 Sep 2020 14:25 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes John Cowan (08 Sep 2020 15:26 UTC)
Fwd: Remaining changes John Cowan (05 Sep 2020 17:48 UTC)
Fwd: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 Sep 2020 12:59 UTC)
Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 Sep 2020 13:07 UTC)

Re: Remaining changes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 06 Sep 2020 17:30 UTC

Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 19:24 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:

> The only comment I have is that the variadic procedures range-fold,
> etc. are described as running in time "O(n) where n is the sum of the
> total accessing times of the ranges", which is a slight
> oversimplification.  As a rule, these procedures terminate when the
> shortest range runs out, so the actual requirement is rather more
> complicated.  But the requirement given is indeed the upper bound on
> running time, so I wouldn't change anything.

Indeed, it is a simplification in the case of ranges of different
lengths. Unfortunately, one cannot make the bound sharper without even
more abstractions as a single"average accessing time" wouldn't be
enough anymore but would have to be replaced by one parameterized by
the index of the element that is accessed.

> I agree with the substantial changes, including the revised running
> time requirement for range-append.  I think this patch should be
> merged.

I have no objections when you have proof-read what I wrote. Initially,
I decided to use the patch format because it was easier for me than
listing all proposed changes in a long list. :)

Marc