standard-library

Is there any in-built stable sort routine in .NET? I know that C++ has an in-built sort routine under "algorithms" std::sort() . Likewise, do we have something to use along with C#? Also, is there any in-built swap function in .NET? Doc Brown Using "C# stable sort" in Google revealed this SO post as top result: Is the sorting algorithm used by .NET's `Array.Sort()` method a stable algorithm? So the answer is: Enumerable.OrderBy is a stable sort function, not built into C#, but part of the .NET framework libraries. Concerning "Swap": I don't know of any prebuilt generic swap function in the

Is the Python standard library standard in the sense that if Python is installed, then the standard library is installed too? The documentation reads For Unix-like operating systems Python is normally provided as a collection of packages, so it may be necessary to use the packaging tools provided with the operating system to obtain some or all of the optional components. The standard library index only lists as optional the "Optional Operating System Services", as far as I can tell. So, is everything else always available on a platform, if Python is installed? If not, what can be expected on

this may be a silly question, but I want to calculate the complexity of one of my algorithms, and I am not sure what complexity to consider for the memmove() function. Can you please help / explain ? void * memmove ( void * destination, const void * source, size_t num ); So is the complexity O(num) or O(1). I suppose it's O(num), but I am not sure as I lack for now the understanding of what's going on under the hood. Since the running time of memmove increases in direct proportionality with the number of bytes it is required to move, it is O(n). What are you applying the memmove() operation to

I've been trying to get my program that I downloaded from my schools server to run offline on my mac. I tried updating GCC by following tutorials and for some reason the tutorials didn't work even though I was using the commands given. Now when I compile.. I get an error saying that is not found.. I don't get it. I've updated Xcode.. followed tons of tutorials.. and I still can't get the thing to run! Why is it saying that random is not found, causing a fatal error? Thanks Error: DungeonLevel.h:6:10: fatal error: 'random' file not found "Since this is a coding site, I need to provide code

This question is spawned from Passing a member function pointer to an overloaded class method into a template function . You need not read that to understand this question. Probably both the questions will have the same answer. I am getting compiler error for below simple code . #include<set> template<typename Return, typename T> T ReceiveFuncPtr (Return (T::*Method)(const int&)) { T obj; // Found and declared an object of actual container class (obj.*Method)(1); // Some processing return obj; // Returned that container class object with RVO } int main () { ReceiveFuncPtr(&std::set<int>:

I am making a program that reads disk images in C. I am trying to make something portable, so I do not want to use too many OS-specific libraries. I am aware there are many disk images that are very large files but I am unsure how to support these files. I have read up on fseek and it seems to use a long int which is not guaranteed to support values over 2 31 -1. fsetpos seems to support a larger value with fpos_t but an absolute position cannot be specified. I have also though about using several relative seeks with fseek but am unsure if this is portable. How can I support portably support

numeric_limits<T>::min(); numeric_limits<T>::lowest(); What is the different between the value returned by both functions? Paragraph 18.3.2.4 of the C++11 Standard specifies: static constexpr T min() noexcept ; 1 Minimum finite value. 2 For floating types with denormalization, returns the minimum positive normalized value. 3 Meaningful for all specializations [...] static constexpr T lowest() noexcept ; 6 A finite value x such that there is no other finite value y where y < x. 7 Meaningful for all specializations in which is_bounded != false. Footnote 197 then adds the relevant remark: lowest(