reserving memory for an array

[Jerry Coffin]

Re: reserving memory for an array

In article <1158983794.315 414.191580@h48g 2000cwc.googleg roups.com>,
vfunc@talktalk. net says...

Where on this page does it mention amortized ?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-O_notation

In the references. This page refers to _Introduction to Algorithms
(Second Edition)_ by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Stein. Chapter 17 of
that book is titled "Amortized Analysis", and is devoted (surprise,
surprise) to amortized analysis of algorithms. Of course, amortized
analysis is used elsewhere in the book as well (the index entry of
"amortized analysis" has 19 sub-entries in addition to the reference to
chapter 17).

The authoritative reference for C++ is the ISO 14882, 2003 (second
edition). It uses the term in about a half dozen places, some of which
(e.g. section 23.1.1/12) apply to a rather large number of containers.

"Amortized" is a misleading and non standard term.

Nonsense!

It is a well-known term of art among computer scientists, and used in
leading references on the subject. With respect specifically to C++ it
is not only well-known, but officially and formally standardized as a
requirement in the C++ standard.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Jerry Coffin]

Re: reserving memory for an array

In article <1158985739.035 262.80970@m73g2 000cwd.googlegr oups.com>,
vfunc@talktalk. net says...

[ ... ]

You agree with false statement, so you are wrong.

You're putting words in my mouth. Your previous statements were wrong,
and now you've descended to outright lies to try to cover them up.

I do have a good understanding of big oh.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the posts I've seen you make thus far
do not make this claim particularly believable.

I've just shown that I have a better understanding than you, by proving
you wrong.

Still more nonsense!

I refer to cheaters, being people that confuse others by conveniently
dropping terms like "amortized" to make things look better than they
really are, for their own personal gain. Imagine how preposterous it
would be if some athletes went around saying "my time for the 100m is
0.1", then when someone said that is impossible they conveniently
turned around and changed their tune to "my amortized time for the 100m
is 0.1, you are wrong."

First of all, people have been very careful to state that insertion into
a vector has amortized constant complexity from the beginning. You are
simply badly confused: you originally asked about _access_ to the array,
which has constant complexity -- NOT amortized constant, but simply
constant.

You then went on to confuse the two, and don't seem to have sorted
things out yet.

Please post the exact errors you're receiving, and identify the compiler
you're using. If you can't get that to compile, I'm reasonably certain
there's a fairly serious problem either with your compiler, or with how
you're using it.

--

>
I will look elsewhere in future.

Just for grins, I'll even suggest on place elsewhere that you can look.
Comeau C++ is widely regarded as having the best conformance of any
compiler available. Nicely enough, Greg Comeau is kind enough to make a
version of it available via his web site. Running it over the code I
posted gives the following results:

-----------snip--------------------
Your Comeau C/C++ test results are as follows:

Comeau C/C++ 4.3.8 (Aug 19 2006 13:36:48) for ONLINE_EVALUATI ON_Alpha1
Copyright 1988-2006 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C++


In strict mode, with -tused, Compile succeeded (but remember, the Comeau
online compiler does not link).
-----------end snip------------------

The URL for the test compiler is:

http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/

So anybody who cares to verify the code I posted can do so. Of course,
the compiler has far more uses than that. Since you claim to have had
difficulty getting your compiler to work with my code, after you try it
out, you should send Greg $50 and get a copy of his compiler, which
obviously works a lot better than whatever you've been using.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Default User]

Re: reserving memory for an array

Jerry Coffin wrote:

In article <1158985739.035 262.80970@m73g2 000cwd.googlegr oups.com>,
vfunc@talktalk. net says...
>
[ ... ]
>

You agree with false statement, so you are wrong.

>
You're putting words in my mouth. Your previous statements were
wrong, and now you've descended to outright lies to try to cover them
up.

He's a troll, plonk him or ignore him.




Brian

[Mark P]

Re: reserving memory for an array

vfunc@talktalk. net wrote:

Where on this page does it mention amortized ?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-O_notation

>
"Amortized" is a misleading and non standard term.
>

It's also not on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron

Nor any of billions of other pages, but what has that to do with anything?

Perhaps check out this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortized_analysis

That you believe it to be a non-standard term and don't understand the
concept only betrays your ignorance on this subject.

[Dave Steffen]

Re: reserving memory for an array

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@ yahoo.comwrites :

Jerry Coffin wrote:
>

In article <1158985739.035 262.80970@m73g2 000cwd.googlegr oups.com>,
vfunc@talktalk. net says...

[ ... ]

You agree with false statement, so you are wrong.

You're putting words in my mouth. Your previous statements were
wrong, and now you've descended to outright lies to try to cover them
up.

>
He's a troll, plonk him or ignore him.

Furthermore, he tends to respond to this kind of post (I posted a
similar comment over on one of the GCC help forums) with an
extraordinarily profane and insulting email. I'll probably get
another from this post. Gents, he really isn't worth the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Steffen, Ph.D.
Software Engineer IV Disobey this command!
Numerica Corporation - Douglas Hofstadter
dgsteffen at numerica dot us