From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0c23e7a19a435c4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr8295248pbc.1.1340482956982; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11869pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Austin Obyrne Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Recapping_on_=93Bug_Sort=94=2E?= Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <954320a2-7ea6-4ea0-ae7b-02cbaef78480@googlegroups.com> References: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> <77963856-3a25-4477-9510-769df7a9b85c@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 31.52.108.135 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340482956 12210 127.0.0.1 (23 Jun 2012 20:22:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:22:36 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=31.52.108.135; posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-23T13:21:00-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:00:48 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 06/23/2012 12:07 PM, Austin Obyrne wrote: > > > > The very salient thing that everybody is missing is the way the data is > > collected and sorted simultaneously in "Parallel Sort" compared to Coun= t > > Sort. >=20 > What you are missing is that you have seen 2 implementations of Counting = Sort.=20 > The one in Wikipedia is presented as a standalone subprogram that gets an= input=20 > array of values and sorts it into an output array. This is how a reusable= =20 > implementation would look. Since Counting Sort is not a general sorting= =20 > algorithm, few real implementations will look like this. Instead, they wi= ll look=20 > like: >=20 > Your implementation, which is not a standalone subprogram nor reusable, t= hat has=20 > the operations of the algorithm scattered through the program that is=20 > collecting/generating the data to be sorted. >=20 > --=20 > Jeff Carter > "Ah, go away or I'll kill ya." > Never Give a Sucker an Even Break > 100 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfron= t.net --- Nope, I haven't seen anything at all in Wikipedia .=20 What I have is an embedded program that collects and sorts data with the mi= nimum of handling, it happens to share a very small common feature with "Co= unt Sort" in the way that sorting is done according to magnitude. This doe= s not justify saying that it is a clone or even a strong resemblance of "Co= unt Sort" however.=20 It is quite wrong and really stretching a weak connection to say that my "P= arallel Sort" is a rediscovery of "Count Sort" - the comparison is too tenu= ous by a long way.=20 "Parallel Sort" studiously obviates the need fo any user assistance by way = of keyboard operators or externally prepared batch files. *This is the nub = of the matter. The shared sorting method is almost trivial. Regards - Austin O'Byrne