Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:23:47 -0400, Rainer Deyke <
rainerd@eldwood.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2010 13:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/7/10 14:40 CDT, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Another solution is just to accept O(n) as the worst complexity for
>>>> the "in" operator. I don't understand what's the problem in this.
>>>
>>> That means we'd have to define another operation, i.e. "quickIn" that
>>> has O(log n) bound.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> I can't say I've ever cared about the big-O complexity of an operation.
>
> Then you don't understand how important it is.