Timeline for Locating a sequence in a sorted array
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 1, 2015 at 21:16 | comment | added | oliverpool |
"it only saves you one iteration" only if you search the element. If you search the bounds, it might turn out to be worse. For instance, search for 1: {0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2}.
|
|
| Nov 1, 2015 at 19:19 | comment | added | Gareth Rees |
Why not just bisect_left(l, x), bisect_right(l, x) - 1? The worry about reusing the bounds seems misplaced to me. In the average case you're searching an array that's half the size—but it's a binary search, so it only saves you one iteration. Whereas the bisect module has a fast C implementation.
|
|
| Oct 28, 2015 at 15:44 | answer | added | SuperBiasedMan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 14:29 | history | edited | ferada | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Mark code as Python, remove fluff.
|
| Oct 25, 2015 at 13:20 | answer | added | oliverpool | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2015 at 19:48 | history | edited | holroy |
added reinventing-the-wheel tag
|
|
| Oct 24, 2015 at 15:09 | answer | added | tokland | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | oliverpool | I implemented it on purpose (and I think using bisect the search for the second extremity of the sequence can't be optimized - whereas I'm reusing the bounds of my dichotomic search) | |
| Oct 24, 2015 at 11:53 | comment | added | jonrsharpe |
Do you know about bisect (i.e. did you implement that search yourself on purpose)?
|
|
| Oct 24, 2015 at 11:11 | history | asked | oliverpool | CC BY-SA 3.0 |