I don't think this is offensive. It's basically asking if this is an XY Problem, which is often a good question.
| [reply] |
moritz:
I didn't think it would be offensive either. I ordinarily wouldn't have said such a thing--but I was recently surprised when I saw a similarly innocuous question spawn a thread that got out of hand and I wanted to try to gently nudge BrowserUk a bit since this time he was on the other side of a similar question.
...roboticus
When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.
| [reply] |
Are you sure that this is a useful question?
I don't know. That's up to the OP to determine.
Since the information he has asked for isn't practically available, it makes sense to consider the possibility of alternate ways of achieving his final goal.
Of course, if what he has asked for is his final goal, then no alternative will do.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
“Let’s not go there, shall we?” BrowserUK’s point is, or could be, a valid one. And so, I will always assume only the best of intentions from anyone and everyone who meditates in this castle: “It is valid, and honorably bespoke.”
You might not be able to obtain the “parity” of a sort algorithm in the traditional sense ... and, like BrowserUK, I rather wonder for what purpose you actually need it. Perhaps some kind of record-by-record comparison of the original vs. the sorted streams might produce a useful alternative metric.
Is the purpose of the OP’s question to ascertain some useful characteristic of the data, or of a particular algorithm? If Perl no longer uses that algorithm (which is undoubtedly the case), does this invalidate the question as-asked? (If it does, then we need to find an alternate question to ask, such that the answer, although a different answer, serves the same useful purpose.)
| |