Message181152
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Ramchandra Apte, eric.snow, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2013年02月02日.09:22:41 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1359796789.3476.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1359796279.24.0.604271302584.issue17100@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> > But rotate_at() / rotate_after() can probably be O(1), unless I'm
> missing something.
>
> Hmm, perhaps. But only for current implementation. With more effective
> deque-like implementation (when linked list items grouped in
> fixed-size chunks) it will be O(n).
Does your deque-like implementation preserve O(1) deletion? |
|