Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
Ross, thanks a lot for the feedback. Sorry I'm late with the response.
--- ross@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
I rather liked having the complexity at the start of the description: it allows one to find this important information at a glance.
My rationale was that the complexity information, while important, is probably one of the last things most of the people are looking for. I doubt anybody would e.g. search for all the O(log n) operations ;-)
I'll keep the complexity information at the end of description unless there are more votes against this.
On the contrary, I have gone looking through entries solely to see their complexity (since I already know about what the functions _do_), especially when comparing two different collections or just looking. They are very short and I like them being the most introductory thing, myself. If you know anything about what complexities the data structure gives for various operations, it can actually suggest quite a bit about what the operation does! (e.g., an O(log(n)) operation CANNOT be a map...) Maybe it's because I have general data structures experience already from other languages, but... complexity is very important to me, it is often the first thing I want to see (it comes after the operation's name anyway!), O(n) lookup is almost as bad as no lookup, O(n^2) behavior, say, with (++)s is generally fatal, worthy of being called a bug in my program. (Practical speed observations like "IntMaps are fast even with not so large sizes" are very important too) Isaac