From: Hardeep Sidhu <hardeeps_at_pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:26:33 -0700

I apologize for my brief description.

The web page posted by Jeff gives a good explanation as to why the new
algorithm is "better" then the previous. It's minor and probably won't make
much of a difference but I figured it wouldn't hurt to correct it (it's one
of those little things that would annoy me if I didn't -- pretty sad eh?
:) )

-Hardeep

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Waltzer" <jeffwaltzer_at_yahoo.com>
To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: [PATCH] playlist and id3 fixes


    Did a little research with Google and found this link:
http://softwaredev.earthweb.com/sdtech/article/0,,12065_616221_2,00.html


It recommends using (quoting from article)
> for (i is 1 to 3)
> Swap i with random position between i and 3


Instead of
> for (i is 1 to n)
> Swap i with random position between 1 and n


(The change is the range starts with 'i' not '1')

   But then when all is said and done it probably doesn't make that much
of a difference.

--- "Nielsen Linus (ext)" <Linus.Nielsen_at_elema.siemens.se> wrote:
> > playlist:
> > - The shuffle algorithm wasn't quite correct
>
> What was wrong about it?
>
> The current version runs through the list, swapping the song at the
> 'count'
> position with a random candidate from the entire list of files.
>
> Your version takes a random candidate from the list of remaining files.
> Why
> is that better?
>
> /Linus

=====
____________________________________________________________
    The heresies we should fear are those which can be confused with
orthodoxy.
-- Borges, "The Theologians"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Received on 2002-07-22