Repository navigation
[lib] Inconsistent style in \complexity #1088
Description
Activity
- added a commit that references this issue
on Dec 20, 2016 - added a commit that references this issue
on Feb 5, 2017 Editorial meeting consensus: Use parens for log only when the argument is long and could be ambiguous, e.g. log(N+1). "It takes" is cringe-worthy.
"Exactly N applications" and related phrases are all ok, no need to harmonize.
Time or space complexity is LWG territory.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Mar 3, 2017 - added a commit that references this issue
on Mar 18, 2017 - added a commit that references this issue
on Mar 20, 2017 The remaining question "Time or space complexity, or both?" was sent to LWG.
Wording of complexity requirements is inconsistent in a couple of ways.
Noun-phrase or sentence?
"Exactly N applications of
f."vs.
"Applies
fexactly N times.`"vs.
"It takes approximately N comparisons."
The first form seems to be the most common.
Time or space complexity, or both?
It is not always made explicit whether the requirement is referring to time or space complexity, or both.
"Linear time." vs. "Linear."
"Constant time." vs. "Constant."
17.5.1.4 says that the Complexity: element specifies "the time and/or space complexity of the function", so being explicit about this would be good.
N log N vs. N log(N)
This is minor, but
N \log(N),N \log NandN \log{N}are all used.