Value of microeffiency (was: Re: Optimal ...)

[T. William Wells]

I wrote:

> That leads to a quandry: should I make it a qsort replacement or
> not?  If so, then this is not reasonable.  If not, then it is
> less useful.
>
> Then again, I could write it with variable arguments and a global
> control variable that determines whether it does the allocation
> or whether the caller passes allocated memory.
>
> And that requires conditional compilation for those
> who do not want to pull in malloc.
>
> Ugh!
>
> Sigh.

Braindead programmer!  Don't you know better than to make such
idiot statements in public!  Go back to your kennel!  :-)

Sorry folks.  If I used drugs (other than caffeine), I'd be
wondering what I was on when I wrote that.  Several of you
corrected me for this idiocy; thanks for the input.

To set the record straight, what I am going to do is to recode my
linked-list sort and my qsort as something that will be
appropriate for placing in a library and which will not embarrass
me unduly.  (It was, after all, several years ago that I wrote
it; I'd like to think that I can do a better job today.)

I'll be posting three routines and a program.  The three routines
will be twwsort, a linked-list sort wherein you provide the
memory; msort, a linked-list sort with an interface identical to
qsort; and qsort, my version of qsort.  The program will be a
test program for it.  This is likely to take several weeks, so
don't hold your breath.

I have not received any response to whether I ought to post it
over here for comment, comparison, and benchmarking, before
sending it to the appropriate source group.  So ought I or not?
E-mail is fine for responses pro or con.