I meant O(m log (mn)) = O(m (log m + log n)), because there are m appends, building up from O(n) to O(mn), but it really doesn't matter because we can easily do better.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Ross Paterson <R.Paterson@city.ac.uk> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:05:13PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
> Many thanks. I don't *think* it's ever been as bad as O(mn) (I'm pretty
> sure it's no worse than O(m log m log n) and it may well be better),

Oh right, there are m appends, each O(log n).

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe