Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cocktail sort with shifting bounds: Difference between revisions

m
added highlighting.
m (replaced an asterisk (*) with a double dagger (‡).)
m (added highlighting.)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2:
 
I did some timings   (using the '''REXX''' program entries)  
for the Rosetta Code   ''cocktail sort''   task versus
the   ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds''   task.
 
::::::: ''cocktail sort task''
:::::::: <small> versus the </small>
the &nbsp;::::::: ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds task'' &nbsp; task.
 
 
All timings used the same identical set of random integers.
All timings used the same (repeatable) identical set of random integers &nbsp; (by using a &nbsp; ''seed'' &nbsp; for the &nbsp; '''random''' &nbsp; BIF).
 
The integers were in the range of &nbsp; 0 ──► 100k, &nbsp; with every
Line 28 ⟶ 31:
════════ ════════════════════════
&nbsp;
(&Dagger;) cocktail sort <b><big>÷</big></b> by
cocktail sort with shifting bounds
 
 
For any amount of &nbsp; '''N''' &nbsp; integers <u>already &nbsp;in &nbsp;order</u>, &nbsp;
the timings were identical, &nbsp; and for the most part, &nbsp; the
times used by both sort versions weren't notable.