Consistency of BigO notations #7454
Comments
|
Any comments ? |
|
I think it should even be a macro. About the comment, I guess it is probably for an old system that is not used anymore. |
|
maybe @afabri knows more about the pattern |
albert-github
added a commit
to albert-github/cgal
that referenced
this issue
Jul 4, 2023
Create `cgalBigO` marco and used it. (`The macro `cgalBigOLarge` is for special situations where we need bigger round brackets)
|
I've just pushed a proposed patch, pull request #7571 |
lrineau
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2023
issue #7454 Consistency of BigO notations
|
Code of #7571 has been integrated in master on GitHub, closing issue |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In the proposed pull request #7453 the BigO notation has been made consistent in the Barycentric_coordinates_2 package.
A quick search reveals that there are in other packages also usages of the BigO notation that are not properly shown, a quick search gave: big_O.txt (this file might contain a number of false positives as they are in non doxygen comment blocks)
\f$O(n)\f$?As a side note / question a number of comment blocks are starting like
/*{\Mimplementation, do they have a deeper meaning?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: