Closed Gaming32 closed 3 years ago
I feel like the unreasonable limit threshold is a bit low
I didn't touch the limits though :P. So I feel like that comment doesn't really apply to the PR's purpose.
I mean that as in how you determine which sorts to no longer call unreasonably slow
I mean that as in how you determine which sorts to no longer call unreasonably slow
I just kinda winged it TBH. You can feel free to update which algorithms if you want.
Also, what about making whether a sort is considered unreasonably slow dependent on the unreasonable limit?
...or for that matter, why even have it?
Also, what about making whether a sort is considered unreasonably slow dependent on the unreasonable limit?
...or for that matter, why even have it?
We don't really want to have anyone calling us out because - let's use an example that is currently marked unreasonable before this pull - Fire (in all its O(n^3) glory) takes too long for some large count of items. My response as its creator? "Don't go trying Stupid Fire on it, though!"
Also, what about making whether a sort is considered unreasonably slow dependent on the unreasonable limit?
...or for that matter, why even have it?
@EmeraldBlock The unreasonably slow toggle is used by sort threads to change how their delay is calculated.
true, but imo that should be reworked anyway
legends say it is still closed to this day
This removes the requirement for sorts with unreasonable limits to be marked as "unreasonably slow."