Return-Path: <John.Harrison-request@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from leopard.cs.byu.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 11:30:51 +0100
Received: by leopard.cs.byu.edu (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA07871;
          Thu, 14 Oct 93 04:17:44 -0600
Sender: info-hol-request@leopard.cs.byu.edu
Errors-To: info-hol-request@leopard.cs.byu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Received: from dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu by leopard.cs.byu.edu 
          with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA07867; Thu, 14 Oct 93 04:17:37 -0600
Received: from swan.cl.cam.ac.uk by dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu 
          with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA15800; Thu, 14 Oct 93 03:17:19 -0700
Received: from woodcock.cl.cam.ac.uk (user jg (rfc931)) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) to cl; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 11:14:52 +0100
To: info-hol@cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: Inefficiency when processing big pairs
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Oct 93 21:07:35 PDT." <9310140407.AA13727@maui.cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 11:14:48 +0100
From: Jim Grundy <Jim.Grundy@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <"swan.cl.cam.:205390:931014101455"@cl.cam.ac.uk>


Hi all

I put a fair bit of work into making the routines in the pair library as 
efficient as I could.   But I am no optimisation expert, and I am still
painfully aware of their slowness.

A lot of people out there had home grown routines for pairs before
the pair library was released, and probably still have them knocking around.
If anyone who has a pair function that is faster than the equivalent one
in the pair library, and who wouldn't mind me using their code, could send
me their function and I will try to work it into the next release of the 
library.

Thanks in advance

Jim