Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk
From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Combsort algorithm
Keywords: sorting, Combsort
Message-ID: <1212@cbmger.UUCP>
Date: 8 May 91 06:32:27 GMT
References: <1193@cbmger.UUCP> <1991May3.201243.7959@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1991May6.155148.1201@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <231b3678.673637576@fergvax>
Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany
Lines: 28

In article <231b3678.673637576@fergvax> 231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz) writes:
>
>void combsort(int *list,int size)
>   {
>    ... 
>      switch(gap)
>         {
>         case 0:           gap=1; break;
>         case 9: case 10:         break;
                            ^^^^^ I miss something here: gap=11; ???

>         default:                 break;
>         }
>      switches=0;
> ....
>         if (list[i] > list[j])
>            {
>            hold=list[i];
>            list[i]=list[j];
>            list[j]=hold;
>            ++switches;
             ^^          
Why do they do this? Why not just set the flag? Or is a "++switches;"
faster than a "switches=1;" (done by MOVEQ in assembler)?

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk