🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4kbl1l$74r@sam.inforamp.net> pcurran@inforamp.net (Peter
Curran) writes:

> On Mon, 08 Apr 96 13:56:53 GMT in article
>     <828971813snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> Lawrence Kirby
>     <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> (Lawrence Kirby) wrote:

>>> IMHO, qsort() is required to return an array that is sorted
>>> according to the criteria implied by the comparison function.
>>> That is, at the point where qsort returns, the array must match
>>> the order implied by the comparison function.

> The comparison function I postulated *is* consistent, at any instant
> in time.  (Just to be clear - another correspondent suggested my
> original posting may not have said quite what I intended.  The
> comparison function I suggested., or intended, calculates as result
> by comparison of the values pointed at by the parameters, in a way
> we can all agree is acceptable.  However, it then calls time(), and
> if the result it odd it negates the result before returning it.  In
> a conventional implementation of time(), it reverses the order every
> second, but defines a consistent order at any given time.)

So what happens if the array is large enough that qsort takes longer
than a second to complete?  The return values from the comparison
function are no longer consistent.  Is the compiler vendor then
obligated to produce an implementation of qsort that will complete a
sort in a constant amount of time?  That is what breaks your
comparison function.

Just a Thought,
Jim Trigg