[lib] Inconsistent style in \complexity #1088
Labels
lwg
Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Comments
jensmaurer
added
the
decision-required
jensmaurer
added a commit
to jensmaurer/draft
that referenced
this issue
Dec 20, 2016
and not $N \log(N)$ or other variants. Partially addresses cplusplus#1088.
jensmaurer
added a commit
to jensmaurer/draft
that referenced
this issue
Feb 5, 2017
and not $N \log(N)$ or other variants. Partially addresses cplusplus#1088.
|
Editorial meeting consensus: Use parens for log only when the argument is long and could be ambiguous, e.g. log(N+1). "It takes" is cringe-worthy. "Exactly N applications" and related phrases are all ok, no need to harmonize. Time or space complexity is LWG territory. |
jensmaurer
removed
the
decision-required
zygoloid
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 3, 2017
and not $N \log(N)$ or other variants. Partially addresses #1088.
jensmaurer
added a commit
to jensmaurer/draft
that referenced
this issue
Mar 18, 2017
Partially addresses cplusplus#1088.
|
The remaining question "Time or space complexity, or both?" was sent to LWG. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Wording of complexity requirements is inconsistent in a couple of ways.
Noun-phrase or sentence?
"Exactly N applications of
f."vs.
"Applies
fexactly N times.`"vs.
"It takes approximately N comparisons."
The first form seems to be the most common.
Time or space complexity, or both?
It is not always made explicit whether the requirement is referring to time or space complexity, or both.
"Linear time." vs. "Linear."
"Constant time." vs. "Constant."
17.5.1.4 says that the Complexity: element specifies "the time and/or space complexity of the function", so being explicit about this would be good.
N log N vs. N log(N)
This is minor, but
N \log(N),N \log NandN \log{N}are all used.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: