Re: Improving containers library

Hehehehe. Actually, in retrospect, most of the data structures in containers are relatively strict -- they typically won't defer work, and support worst-case performance as opposed to amortized. (Sequence is the exception, but worst-case O(log n) is much nicer than worst-case O(n)). My thinking now is along the lines of a relatively strict binomial heap implementation, with maybe an extra module for pairing heaps when worst-case runtime is less important than overall speed. Louis Wasserman wasserman.louis@gmail.com http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Milan Straka wrote:

Hi,

if I understand the function "fusing" correctly, you use the multi-pass variant of a pairing heap? Personally I thought more in the lines of a two-pass lazy variant of pairing heap mentioned in Okasaki's book. And there are skew heaps... Well, we'll let a benchmark do the judging :)

Thanks, Milan

...

Yo,

If you're interested in adding priority queues to containers, shameless plug: I've got a good implementation of pairing heaps in http://hackage.haskell.org/package/queuelike. It's a bit obfuscated right now, but I'd definitely be interested in producing something that's actually readable and usable enough to be put into containers...

Louis Wasserman wasserman.louis@gmail.com http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:28 AM, wrote:

...

Re: Improving containers library

...

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries