Well, actually...

The default for #asSortedCollection is <=. If instead, one were to replace this with:

[((1 to: 10000) collect: [:x |3]) asSorterdCollection:[ :a :b | a<b ] timeToRun ==> 183

compared with:

[((1 to: 10000) collect: [:x |3]) asSorterdCollection:[ :a :b | a<=b]] timeToRun ==> 29150

Obviously, the comparison is always true, hence something always happens (probably a swap).

Hence, not a bug - though I think sorting on <= is inefficient. DAS

At 06:00 PM 5/1/2002 +0100, you wrote:

Bob Arning arning@charm.net wrote:

...

Hi all,

Is the following a known and accepted feature of our sorting algorithm?

[((1 to: 10000) collect: [ :x | x]) asSortedCollection] timeToRun ==> 98

[((1 to: 10000) collect: [ :x | 3]) asSortedCollection] timeToRun ==> 20826

Cheers, Bob

No, I don't think it is known and accepted.

Another test: [((1 to: 10000) collect: [ :x | 10001 - x]) asSortedCollection] timeToRun ==> 87

asSortedCollection

calls

newFrom: aCollection "implemented in OrderedCollection" "Answer an instance of me containing the same elements as aCollection."

    | newCollection |
    newCollection _ self new: aCollection size.
    newCollection addAll: aCollection.
    ^newCollection

And #addAll: is implemented in SortedCollection

addAll: aCollection aCollection size > (self size // 3) ifTrue: [aCollection do: [:each | self addLast: each]. self reSort] ifFalse: [aCollection do: [:each | self add: each]]. ^ aCollection

which calls #add:

add: newObject ^ super insert: newObject before: (self indexForInserting: newObject)

which finally calls #insert:before:

and #indexForInserting:

Two methods which are fairly complex and must contain an error somewhere.

Are there sorting specialists out there?

Regards Hannes