### Q(Question):

The topic comes from a question:

Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

1Quicksort

2Linear Search

3Bubble Sort

The answer is 2Linear Search

Could someone explain why Linear Search, not the other two options?

Or I misunderstood the original question?

Thanks you guys!

### A(Answer):

On 4 May, 23:27, mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrote:

The topic comes from a question:

Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

1Quicksort

2Linear Search

3Bubble SortThe answer is 2Linear Search

Could someone explain why Linear Search, not the other two options?

Well, it’s a poor question: asking what /you/ would prefer to do; but

presuming you want to wait as little time as possible wouldn’t option

2 finish soonest? The fact that sorting and searching accomplish

different things also seems to be there to confuse.

You might be better asking questions on programming (i.e. not on C) in

comp.programming.

—

### A(Answer):

mike-yue said:

The topic comes from a question:

Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

1Quicksort

2Linear Search

3Bubble SortThe answer is 2Linear Search

Could someone explain why Linear Search, not the other two options?

Or I misunderstood the original question?

The question is testing your knowledge of algorithmic complexity.

As the number of data items rises (especially past the limit where you can

reasonably think of all numbers as being basically the same size), you can

begin to ignore minor factors like the cost of overheads (e.g. opening a

file) and even, to some extent, the machine speed! All that matters, for

large N, is how this N affects the algorithm.

Quicksort is O(N * log N). Linear search is O(N). Bubble sort is O(N * N).

To understand, plot the graphs.

—

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999

### A(Answer):

mike-yue wrote:

The topic comes from a question:

search, or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

1Quicksort

2Linear Search

3Bubble SortThe answer is 2Linear Search

Could someone explain why Linear Search, not the other two options?

Or I misunderstood the original question?

Given that 1 and 3 are sorts, and 2 is a search, and given that it’s

far from clear what ‘result’ you’re supposedly waiting for, I’d say

you have misunderstood, or you’ve mis-remembered it.

In any case, this is a general programming question, not a question

on the C language.

—

Peter

### A(Answer):

All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.

I know it is about algorithmic complexity, but I totally forget the

defination of the O, even the Log. University time seems a century ago

I almost forget everything.

I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs, unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!

Thanks again

### A(Answer):

mike-yue said:

All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.

Whilst your claim is true, it is meaningless. Linear search is a search

technique. The other two are sorting techniques. It’s tempting to say that

you’re comparing apples with oranges, but it’s more like comparing apples

with October.

I know it is about algorithmic complexity, but I totally forget the

defination of the O, even the Log. University time seems a century ago

I almost forget everything.I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs,

That’s only true because 99% of programming jobs don’t actually require

very much programming skill.

unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!

Well, that’s a reasonable question, isn’t it? And hardly difficult.

—

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999

### A(Answer):

mike-yue <ne*********@gmail.comwrites:

All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.

Please quote some context when you post a followup.

The missing context is the question in your original article:

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

| or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

| 1Quicksort

| 2Linear Search

| 3Bubble Sort

but neither Quicksort nor Bubblesort is a searching algorithm. Since

they do entirely different things, asking which one you’d rather wait

for doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I know it is about algorithmic complexity, but I totally forget the

defination of the O, even the Log. University time seems a century ago

I almost forget everything.I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs, unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!

And this was a problem? That’s certainly something I’d expect any

good programmer to know. If you’re going to be writing code that does

sorting and searching, and you don’t know this stuff, there’s an

excellent chance your code is going to be unacceptable slow.

(Quicksort is O(N log N) best case and average case; a straightforward

implementation is O(N**2) worst case, but it can be made O(N log N)

with a little tweaking.)

—

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>

Nokia

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

— Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

### A(Answer):

>>>>"my" == mike-yue <ne*********@gmail.comwrites:

myThe topic comes from a question: Would you rather wait for the

myresults of a quicksort, a linear search, or a bubble sort on a

my200000 element array?

I myself would rather wait for the results of a bubble sort; this

means I have much more chance of my tea being ready before the result

set is.

Charlton

—

Charlton Wilbur

cw*****@chromatico.net

### A(Answer):

Richard Heathfield wrote:

mike-yue said:

>All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.Whilst your claim is true, it is meaningless. Linear search is a search

technique. The other two are sorting techniques. It’s tempting to say that

you’re comparing apples with oranges, but it’s more like comparing apples

with October.>I know it is about algorithmic complexity, but I totally forget the

defination of the O, even the Log. University time seems a century ago

I almost forget everything.I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs,

That’s only true because 99% of programming jobs don’t actually require

very much programming skill.

Or in my case, 99% of programming has been making hardware or web pages

tick, without a bit O in sight!

—

Ian Collins.

### A(Answer):

mike-yue wrote:

>

The topic comes from a question:

search, or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

1Quicksort

2Linear Search

3Bubble SortThe answer is 2Linear Search

options? Or I misunderstood the original question?

It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:

for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;

else /* failure */ return -1;

—

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)

[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

### A(Answer):

CBFalconer said:

<snip>

It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

Rookie error…

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;

….repeated.

—

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999

### A(Answer):

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

<snip>

>It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

Rookie error…

> if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

You didn’t think. This was deliberate, since as I read it the

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000]. For demo

purposes the idea is to use the original constant. The code within

the loop is the only thing that affects the speed, in practice.

—

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)

[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

### A(Answer):

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

<snip>

>>It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

Rookie error…

>> if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

You didn’t think.

I didn’t have to think very hard to see that the code is wrong. Given the

size of the array, the code is broken.

This was deliberate, since as I read it the

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].

As you /wrote/ it, however, "n is the size of the array, here 200000". For

such an array, evaluating a[200000] is an error. I am not a mind-reader. I

can only go on what you write.

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999

### A(Answer):

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

<snip>

>>It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

Rookie error…

>> if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

You didn’t think. This was deliberate, since as I read it the

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].

[…]

I’m curious how you inferred that from

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear

| search, or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

There was no implication that a[200000] had to be valid.

—

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>

Nokia

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

— Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

### A(Answer):

On 5 May 2008 at 0:13, Richard Heathfield wrote:

mike-yue said:

>All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.Whilst your claim is true, it is meaningless. Linear search is a search

technique. The other two are sorting techniques. It’s tempting to say that

you’re comparing apples with oranges, but it’s more like comparing apples

with October.

I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t so literal-minded that

he stops with a syntax error at the first place where most humans would

be happy to read between the lines that implicit in the question is:

would you rather linearly search a list, or first sort it and then

perform a binary search?

To which the answer depends primarily on *how many* searches you’re

going to perform.

### A(Answer):

On 5 May, 01:26, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

….

I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs, unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!And this was a problem? That’s certainly something I’d expect any

good programmer to know. If you’re going to be writing code that does

sorting and searching, and you don’t know this stuff, there’s an

excellent chance your code is going to be unacceptable slow.(Quicksort is O(N log N) best case and average case; a straightforward

implementation is O(N**2) worst case, but it can be made O(N log N)

with a little tweaking.)

It’s not difficult to /state/ the complexity of quicksort (assuming

one remembers it) but it is another thing to /explain/ it.

—

### A(Answer):

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comha scritto nel messaggio

news:48***************@yahoo.com…

for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;

else /* failure */ return -1;

why not

if(a) for (i = 0; i<=200000; ++i)

{if (a[i] == item) return i;}

else return -1;

### A(Answer):

On May 4, 5:26*pm, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.Please quote some context when you post a followup.

The missing context is the question in your original article:

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

| or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

| 1Quicksort

| 2Linear Search

| 3Bubble Sort

There is no missing context. The question is exactly the original

question, no more no less.

but neither Quicksort nor Bubblesort is a searching algorithm. *Since

they do entirely different things, asking which one you’d rather wait

for doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

defination of the O, even the Log. University time seems a century ago

I almost forget everything.I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs, unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!And this was a problem? *That’s certainly something I’d expect any

good programmer to know. *If you’re going to be writing code that does

sorting and searching, and you don’t know this stuff, there’s an

excellent chance your code is going to be unacceptable slow.

Seems I need pick up my old textbook again

>

(Quicksort is O(N log N) best case and average case; a straightforward

implementation is O(N**2) worst case, but it can be made O(N log N)

with a little tweaking.)—

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks…@mib.org>

Nokia

"We must do something. *This is something. *Therefore, we must do this.."

* * — Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

### A(Answer):

On May 5, 3:43*am, James Harris <james.harri…@googlemail.comwrote:

On 5 May, 01:26, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

…

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!And this was a problem? *That’s certainly something I’d expect any

good programmer to know. *If you’re going to be writing code that does

sorting and searching, and you don’t know this stuff, there’s an

excellent chance your code is going to be unacceptable slow.(Quicksort is O(N log N) best case and average case; a straightforward

implementation is O(N**2) worst case, but it can be made O(N log N)

with a little tweaking.)It’s not difficult to /state/ the complexity of quicksort (assuming

one remembers it) but it is another thing to /explain/ it.—

agree with you. it is more difficult to explain if you learned the

theory in other language, e.g. in Chinese.

I was wondering if it is a easy thing to explain algorithmic

complexity for a programmer whose mother language is English(excluding

the geeks who are crazy about algorithmic).

### A(Answer):

On May 5, 9:58*am, "rio" <a…@b.cwrote:

"CBFalconer" <cbfalco…@yahoo.comha scritto nel messaggionews:48***************@yahoo.com…* for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

* * *if (a[i] == item) break;

* }

* if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;

* else * * * */* failure */ * * * * * *return -1;why not

* *if(a) for (i = 0; *i<=200000; ++i)

* * * * * * * * * * {if (a[i] == item) *return * i;}

* *else *return * -1;

Don’t you think:

for (i = 0; i<200000; ++i)

if the condition i<=200000, the array will overflow.

### A(Answer):

mike-yue <ne*********@gmail.comwrites:

On May 4, 5:26*pm, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

>mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.Please quote some context when you post a followup.

The missing context is the question in your original article:

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear search,

| or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

| 1Quicksort

| 2Linear Search

| 3Bubble SortThere is no missing context. The question is exactly the original

question, no more no less.

Yes, and since you didn’t quote it in your followup *that’s* the

missing context.

Since you use Google Groups, you need to be aware that most of us

don’t use a web-based interface to read Usenet. The article to which

you’re replying may not be readily visible to someone reading your

followup; it might not be available at all. Because of this, you need

to provide enough context so that your followup makes sense on its

own. (But it’s rarely necessary or appropriate to quote the *entire*

article.)

Once upon a time, Google Groups had a serious bug that made it

difficult to provide any context when posting a followup. Chris

F.A. Johnson put together a web page explaining how and why to work

around this bug. The bug was fixed some time ago, but the web page

and the ones it links to are still useful, particularly the links

under "Quoting".

<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

—

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>

Nokia

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

— Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

### A(Answer):

On May 5, 12:50*pm, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

On May 4, 5:26*pm, Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

All very good answers. many thanks for you guys,

In a word, the Liner Search is the cheapest method to search. the

other two are complicated and expensive.Please quote some context when you post a followup.

The missing context is the question in your original article:

| or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?

| 1Quicksort

| 2Linear Search

| 3Bubble SortThere is no missing context. The question is exactly the original

question, no more no less.Yes, and since you didn’t quote it in your followup *that’s* the

missing context.Since you use Google Groups, you need to be aware that most of us

don’t use a web-based interface to read Usenet. *The article to which

you’re replying may not be readily visible to someone reading your

followup; it might not be available at all. *Because of this, you need

to provide enough context so that your followup makes sense on its

own. *(But it’s rarely necessary or appropriate to quote the *entire*

article.)Once upon a time, Google Groups had a serious bug that made it

difficult to provide any context when posting a followup. *Chris

F.A. Johnson put together a web page explaining how and why to work

around this bug. *The bug was fixed some time ago, but the web page

and the ones it links to are still useful, particularly the links

under "Quoting".<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

—

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks…@mib.org>

Nokia

"We must do something. *This is something. *Therefore, we must do this.."

* * — Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"- Hide quoted text –– Show quoted text –

glad to know the correct method to use google group.

I don’t use google group very often, so sorry for that.

### A(Answer):

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>CBFalconer said:

<snip>

It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {

Rookie error…

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

You didn’t think. This was deliberate, since as I read it the

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].[…]

I’m curious how you inferred that from

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear

| search, or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?There was no implication that a[200000] had to be valid.

I don’t remember. The original is long gone from here. The point

is that the code I published was self-consistent. If a[200000] in

inaccessible the coding is simpler.

—

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)

[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

### A(Answer):

James Harris wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks…@mib.orgwrote:

mike-yue <needpass…@gmail.comwrites:

…

>>I think it is useless for 99% programmer jobs, unfortunately it’s

always been asked. Once a interviewer asked me to explain the

algorithmic complexity of quick sort!And this was a problem? That’s certainly something I’d expect any

good programmer to know. If you’re going to be writing code that does

sorting and searching, and you don’t know this stuff, there’s an

excellent chance your code is going to be unacceptable slow.

implementation is O(N**2) worst case, but it can be made O(N log N)

with a little tweaking.)It’s not difficult to /state/ the complexity of quicksort (assuming

one remembers it) but it is another thing to /explain/ it.

Why? It is basically the same process for any algorithm based on

chop in half and solve the halves.

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)

[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

### A(Answer):

CBFalconer said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:<snip>

It’s a poor question. Quicksort is O(nLOGn), Linear search is

O(n), and bubble sort is O(n*n), where n is the size of the array,

here 200000. However linear searching doesn’t require sorting, it

only requires examining each member of the original array for

equality. Since you get the linear answer quickest, and don’t need

the array sorted, that is the optimum answer. The code is also the

simplest:

>

for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {Rookie error…

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

You didn’t think. This was deliberate, since as I read it the

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].[…]

I’m curious how you inferred that from

| Would you rather wait for the results of a quicksort, a linear

| search, or a bubble sort on a 200000 element array?There was no implication that a[200000] had to be valid.

I don’t remember.

You don’t have to. He quoted the original for you.

The original is long gone from here.

He quoted it for you. And here’s the message ID:

<d0**********************************@q24g2000prf. googlegroups.com>

And just to make it completely obvious, here’s the thread subject line:

[Re: A question: Is 200,000 element array worth sorting and search?]

The point

is that the code I published was self-consistent.

No, the point is that the code you published was *wrong*.

If a[200000] in inaccessible the coding is simpler.

Which is why everyone is so puzzled that you got it wrong.

Well, we all make mistakes – but when people point out your mistake, it’s

not wise to start firing off accusations at them, such as "you didn’t

think". It is true that someone wasn’t thinking, but that someone isn’t

the someone you thought it was.

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999

### A(Answer):

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

…. snip …

>>>

for (i = 0; i <= 200000; i++) {Rookie error…

if (a[i] == item) break;

}

if ((i <= 200000) && (a[i] == item)) return i;…repeated.

original asked for an array that could hold a[200000].

…. snip …

>

No, the point is that the code you published was *wrong*.If a[200000] in inaccessible the coding is simpler.

Which is why everyone is so puzzled that you got it wrong.

Well, we all make mistakes – but when people point out your mistake, it’s

not wise to start firing off accusations at them, such as "you didn’t

think". It is true that someone wasn’t thinking, but that someone isn’t

the someone you thought it was.

What’s the error? My code handles an array whose last member is

indexed by 200000. The finalize stuff allows for the same max.

Yes, the code can be simpler, so what? The point was the O(n)

operation of the simple loop.

I have no objection to admitting errors. This is not one.

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)

[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

### A(Answer):

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

<snip>

If a[200000] in inaccessible the coding is simpler.

Which is why everyone is so puzzled that you got it wrong.

Well, we all make mistakes – but when people point out your mistake,

it’s not wise to start firing off accusations at them, such as "you

didn’t think". It is true that someone wasn’t thinking, but that someone

isn’t the someone you thought it was.What’s the error?

Referencing an object that doesn’t exist.

My code handles an array whose last member is indexed by 200000.

The array under discussion (see subject line and OP’s text) is a

200000-element array, so there is no member in the array for which an

index of 200000 is legal.

The finalize stuff allows for the same max.

Yes, the code can be simpler, so what? The point was the O(n)

operation of the simple loop.I have no objection to admitting errors. This is not one.

It has become *two* errors – the original error, and the rather graver

error of not recognising when one is in error.

Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Email: -http://www. +rjh@

Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>

"Usenet is a strange place" – dmr 29 July 1999