Talk:Sort disjoint sublist

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 00:36, 15 February 2011 by rosettacode>Paddy3118 (→‎Indices as collection: I'' modify the task description.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Adapted from a question/answer here. Note that the solution for languages with pointers might be different than the Python as you may be able to adapt a sort routine to sort via an extra level of indirection. --Paddy3118 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

... Which has just been done by the Go example. Sweet! --Paddy3118 06:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I expect that swapping through a level of indirection to be less efficient than extracting the values, sorting them, then putting them back, for typical machine architectures and random sorts. --Rdm 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to call that either way; depends on too many factors (notably whether cache limits are observed). Only way to know is to measure in a realistic setting. –Donal Fellows 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indices as collection

I see that many languages take the indices as a general collection (or array) instead of specifically as a set. If they're doing that, should they also be enforcing uniqueness of the indices before progressing with the rest of the sort? (To be exact, failing to do this gives wrong answers…) –Donal Fellows 16:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The task states that 6, 1, and 7 are given. I didn't want people to assume they got 1,6,7 in that order. I would therefore be inclined to not insist that a routine should also account for duplicates. (Although I had noted this addition in the TCL example which is fine). --Paddy3118 17:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems like having duplicate indicies wouldn't change the outcome, but it would waste a few cycles reassigning the same number to the same index. some computer languages might not work like my brain though. --Mwn3d 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the repeated indices will not, in general, correspond to the location of the repeated data, once the data is sorted. --Rdm 18:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I tried the example on the main page using "6, 6, 1, 7" for the indices. Another solution would be to sort the indices after they come in. You could use the same sort function for that as you do for the data. Either way, it's an extra step. I vote for progrmamer's choice and let the indices come in however they will. --Mwn3d 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm even more wrong. It's not good enough just to sort the indices. You should probably set-ify the indices as they come in to be sure. --Mwn3d 21:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I confirmed that the Python-type algo's aren't upset by repeated terms - it just gives rise to extra, redundant work. You do, however have to eventually sort the indices and I think that this should be part of any correct answer that uses this type of algorithm rather than the Go-type algo. But even if duplicates did matter, I would read the task as not giving you duplicates. --Paddy3118 19:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Except, python's algorithm can be upset by repeated terms:
<lang python>>>> def sort_disjoint_sublist(data, indices):

... indices = sorted(indices) ... values = [data[i] for i in indices] ... values.sort() ... for index, value in zip(indices, values): ... data[index] = value ... >>> d = [7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0] >>> i = [6, 1, 7, 7] >>> sort_disjoint_sublist(d, i) >>> d [7, 0, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, 6]</lang>

--Rdm 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Just goes to show... I tried [6,6,6,1,7], and [6,7,6,1,6,1,7] and just assumed ...
I'll tighten the task description. --Paddy3118 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I only asked because I couldn't see whether having duplicates and not filtering could guarantee a correct result or not. If I can't see why a property might hold, I suspect it doesn't (an application of the Paranoid Principle). It should be reasonably simple to fix by adding a unique-ing step to the processing of the index list. (Fun problem overall! Short and not quite as obvious as it looks at first glance.) –Donal Fellows 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)