[PD] list-sort

[Matt Barber]

Hi,

Yeah, the [table]-based version is much much faster than the
list-based version, so it can replace the old one; the upside is that
it's also more transparent.  I don't know about resizing tables
either, so I agree to err on the side of caution.  100 seems
appropriate.  Attached a version which will resize the table up to the
nearest hundred, and it will stay that way until it receives a list
that's larger than the current table at which point it will add
another hundred... that way it will adapt to list sizes in case it
gets many lists in a row with more than 100 elements.  It's still
called [list-shellsort-tab] for clarity on the list.

Matt


> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 22:30:09 +0100
> From: Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org>
> Subject: Re: [PD] list-sort
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Message-ID: <20081203213009.GA9173 at footils.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hallo,
> Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
>
>> I had attached one to the last post I sent -- look for list-shellsort-tab.pd
>
> Seems I had deleted that one by mistake - but I got it from the
> archives. That's very cool! Do you think I should replace the version in
> the SVN with the table version?
>
> I'm just not quite sure if resizing the table should be a bit more
> conservative, as I believe, resizing tables is a bit costly in Pd (and
> it may lead to dsp-chain reorderings, but I don't know much about that
> topic.)
>
> Probably we can get away with just keeping the default table size of 100
> elements and only resize and free if the lists are longer than that.
>
> Ciao
> --
> Frank
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: list-shellsort-tab.pd
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20081203/e5b6efbe/attachment.asc>