User talk:Thiagohirai

Quicksort edit
I think you missed my point. I completely understand the potential advantages of using a more advanced technique to select the pivot. However, two things should be taken into consideration here: 1) the recommendation in the pseudo-code (in the form of a comment) is an arbitrary choice and it's as bad as picking the last element; and 2) most implementations of quicksort do not attempt to select a pivot in a particularly smart way (and that includes textbooks in the subject). The current article has more code than what is needed to describe an in-place version of quicksort and it's harder to read because of that. If we really want to keep that parameter (for generality sake), then I think we should elaborate more on the choice of the pivot (in the pseudo-code itself).

I also find that the split in "Simple version" and "Complex version" is not a good one. Perhaps Complex version should be renamed to In-place version, which is really what that section talks about.

Finally, the comment about the overflow, while correct, is completely out of place and adds a lot of clutter without adding any useful information about quicksort itself. (Thiagohirai (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC))


 * I replied to you on Talk:Quicksort since it's an article issue. The only reason I reverted you is I'm generally averse to large deletions of content without some discussion beforehand - deleting that much content is usually indicative of a bigger problem (which in this case is the poor organisation of the algorithm section). bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)