Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #397408
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) |
| Date | 2026-04-07 02:12 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86fr57xhf2.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <10pbhud$2tbk0$2@dont-email.me> <10pcvr2$3ednq$2@dont-email.me> <20260318112151.000021dc@yahoo.com> <10pdu8k$3o60c$1@dont-email.me> <20260319111959.0000447c@yahoo.com> |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
[..lots left out..]
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 11:20:03 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
[...]
>> I don't think pure bubblesort has much serious use outside
>> educational purposes, but it is easy to understand, easy to
>> implement correctly in pretty much any language, and can do a
>> perfectly good job if you don't need efficient sorting of large
>> datasets (for small enough datasets, a hand-written bubblesort
>> in C will be faster than calling qsort).
>
> IMHO, Bubble Sort is harder to understand then Straight Select
> Sort.
After reading through the several discussions regarding sorting,
I have a variety of comments to make about sorting algorithms,
not just the remarks above but to the discussions in general.
The posting above seems a reasonable departure point for those
comments, although much of what I have to say is prompted by
comments in other postings.
For starters, I contend that a completely simple bubble sort is
the easiest sorting algorithm to show to novice programmers. By
novice here I mean people who barely even know what is meant by
the word algorithm. To be specific, what I mean by simple bubble
sort is like this:
void
simple_minded_bubble_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = 0; i < n; i++ ){
for( j = 1; j < n; j++ ){
if( follows( j-1, j, a ) ) swap( j-1, j, a );
}
}
}
Incidentally all the algorithms I will show here are written in
terms of the two functions follows() and swap(), whose meanings
are (I hope) very obvious. The array to be sorted has values of
type Element, which doesn't play any direct role in the
discussion.
I think it goes without saying that this is a crummy algorithm.
But it's a very simple algorithm, which makes it a good first
choice for novice programmers.
We can reasonably ask how bad this algorithm is, and ask in a way
that novices can understand. It seems obvious that a good
sorting algorithm should compare any two particular elements at
most once. If we try this algorithm on an array of randomly
chosen input values, we might get statistics like this:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
Here the columns are name, number of compares, number of swaps,
and number of compares shown as a percentage of the "maximal"
number of compares. The crumminess is evident: this algorithm
compares each pair of elements not once but twice. Awful!
There is a second and more subtle problem, which is that even
though the algorithm is simple it isn't obvious that it works or
why. However it isn't hard to see that the inner loop carries
the largest value to the upper end of the array, and similarly
the second iteration of the inner loop will carry the second
largest value to the last place before that, and so on. This
observation leads to a second algorithm that is both faster and
has a motivating argument for why it works:
void
bubble_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = n; i > 1; i-- ){
for( j = 1; j < i; j++ ){
if( follows( j-1, j, a ) ) swap( j-1, j, a );
}
}
}
Now the inner loop works over smaller and smaller subsections of
the whole array, each time carrying the largest remaining value
to its appropriate location in the to-be-sorted array. Using the
same test data as before, we get these measurements:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
Excellent! Besides being able to see why it works, we do better
on the number of compares by a factor of two. The number of
swaps is the same (as indeed it cannot be improved for any
algorithm that swaps only adjacent elements), but cutting down on
the number of compares is clearly a step in the right direction.
Now if we are inspired we can notice something. During one
iteration of the inner loop, if we remember the last place a swap
occurred, subsequent iterations of the inner don't need to go any
farther than that. The reason is that we know all the values
after the last swap must the larger than the element being
carried along, so only smaller values were passed over, so we
don't need to look past the location of the rightmost swap. It's
kind of a subtle argument, but we can program it thusly:
void
knuth_bubble_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j, t;
for( i = n; i > 1; i = t ){
for( t = 0, j = 1; j < i; j++ ){
if( follows( j-1, j, a ) ){
swap( j-1, j, a ), t = j;
}
}
}
}
The variable 't' records the location past which no more compares
need be done in the next iteration. By using 'i = t' in the
outer loop control, we get to limit the range of what is looked
at in the next iteration of the inner loop. Here is the data for
the first three algorithms, again all run on the same input:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
The number of compares done has indeed gone down, but not by
much. There are a couple of dirty secrets about the "improved"
version of bubble sort. One is that it doesn't help very much.
The other is about the idea that it terminates early when the
array values are already almost sorted. That is mostly a myth.
It can happen that when the array values are already almost
sorted the knuth_bubble_sort() will terminate early, but it
almost never does. Even when there is only one array value out
of place, it is relatively rare for this algorithm to get a big
speedup.
It's time to look at another algorithm. Here is one that wasn't
around when I was first learning about sorting algorithms, called
gnome sort:
void
gnome_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i = 0;
while( ++i < n ){
if( follows( i-1, i, a ) ){
swap( i-1, i, a );
i = i > 1 ? i-2 : 1;
}
}
}
The idea is simple. Imagine a gnome wandering among the array
elements, starting at the left end. If the two elements being
looked at are in order the gnome moves right; if they aren't
then the gnome swaps them and moves left (of course never moving
past the left end). So the gnome just wanders back and forth,
swapping elements that are out of order and going either left or
right, depending on whether it just did a swap or not. How does
it do, measurement-wise? Here is the data:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
We see the relatively simple gnome sort does better than the more
complicated knuth bubble sort. Perhaps not a lot better, but
still better.
Even so, these numbers are not very inspiring. We can do better
if we take the basic idea of (knuth) bubble sort and make it
boustrophedonic, or what might be called a ping pong sort:
void
ping_pong_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i=1, j=-1, k=n, newj, newk;
while( j+1 < k-1 ){
for( i = j+2, newk = i; i < k; i++ ){
if( follows( i-1, i, a ) ){
swap( i-1, i, a ), newk = i;
}
}
k = newk;
for( i = k-1, newj = i; i > j+1; i-- ){
if( follows( i-1, i, a ) ){
swap( i-1, i, a ), newj = i-1;
}
}
j = newj;
}
}
Gosh, what a mess. But let's look at the metrics.
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
ping pong 49983149 37391291 66.081
That is nice to see - a healthy performance improvement. But of
course what everyone is waiting for are the well-known simple
standard sorts:
void
selection_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = 0; i < n; i++ ){
unsigned k = i;
for( j = i+1; j < n; j++ ){
if( follows( k, j, a ) ) k = j;
}
swap( i, k, a );
}
}
void
insertion_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = 1; i < n; i++ ){
for( j = i; j > 0; j-- ){
if( !follows( j-1, j, a ) ) break;
swap( j-1, j, a );
}
}
}
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
ping pong 49983149 37391291 66.081
selection 75638850 12289 100.000
insertion 37403579 37391291 49.450
Clearly selection sort should be used only when the amount of
movement is the overriding factor, and compares don't matter.
Conversely, insertion sort is the flip side of that - the number
of compares is much lower, the amount of movement is the same as
all the others.
For my own amusement I wrote a new sorting algorithm, which I
whimsically call titanic sort:
void
titanic_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = n; i > 0; i-- ){
for( j = i-1; j < n-1; j++ ){
if( follows( j, j+1, a ) ) swap( j, j+1, a );
}
}
}
Titanic sort is just like an (ordinary) bubble sort, except it
does ever larger iterations in the inner loop, rather than ever
smaller iterations like an ordinary bubble sort. Here are the
metrics:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
ping pong 49983149 37391291 66.081
selection 75638850 12289 100.000
insertion 37403579 37391291 49.450
titanic 75638850 37391291 100.000
After writing the titanic sort, I had an idea. Because we are
working on ever growing subintervals, we can stop the inner loop
early whenever we find we don't need to swap. For this sort I
once again chose a whimsical name, namely seven up sort:
void
sevenup_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j;
for( i = n; i > 0; i-- ){
for( j = i-1; j < n-1; j++ ){
if( !follows( j, j+1, a ) ) break;
swap( j, j+1, a );
}
}
}
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
ping pong 49983149 37391291 66.081
selection 75638850 12289 100.000
insertion 37403579 37391291 49.450
titanic 75638850 37391291 100.000
seven up 37403579 37391291 49.450
Oh of course; a seven up sort is just like an insertion sort,
but inserting on the far end rather than the near end. Duh!
After doing all these I wrote and measured three other sorts, for
which I will give the metrics but the code for only one. Here
are the metrics:
simple bubble 151277700 37391291 200.000
bubble 75638850 37391291 100.000
knuth bubble 75611850 37391291 99.964
gnome 74794859 37391291 98.884
ping pong 49983149 37391291 66.081
selection 75638850 12289 100.000
insertion 37403579 37391291 49.450
titanic 75638850 37391291 100.000
seven up 37403579 37391291 49.450
heapsort 309459 168889 0.409
quicksort 192033 117831 0.254
binary insertion 150102 37391291 0.198
The code for heapsort and for quicksort was not as clean as I
would like so I'm not posting that. Here is the code for binary
insertion sort:
void
binary_insertion_sort( unsigned n, Element a[n] ){
unsigned i, j, k, m;
for( i = 1; i < n; i++ ){
j = -1, k = i;
while( j+1 < k ){
m = j+(k-j)/2;
if( follows( m, i, a ) ) k = m;
else j = m;
}
for( j = i; j > k; j-- ) swap( j-1, j, a );
}
}
A comment about heapsort, especially as compared with quicksort.
Using this test input heapsort did a lot more compares than
quicksort did. That result is not an accident of the data. Of
course sometimes quicksort misbehaves, but usually it doesn't,
and in those cases heapsort is going to run slower than quicksort
because it does more compares. That result is inherent in the
heapsort algorithm. It's true that the worst case for heapsort
is O( N * log N ), but constant for heapsort is bigger than (the
average case) for quicksort. Also it's worth noting that binary
insertion sort does the best of all in terms of number of
compares done.
My conclusions...
The right place to start on sorting algorithms is with bubble
sort, not because it's a good algorithm, but because it's the
easiest one to show, and what is more important it's a good way
to teach about how algorithms evolve.
There is no reason to use the knuth version of bubble sort.
Compared to ordinary bubble sort the upside is small and not
worth the downside of needing more intricate code.
If there is a good chance that input starts off being close to
sorted, ping pong sort can be considered.
In almost all cases prefer binary insertion sort to plain
insertion sort, not because the average case is better but
because the worst case is better. Moreover the extra code needed
is small and easily understood.
Writing a full-scale sorting algorithm, such as a replacement for
qsort, is a non-trivial undertaking.
Other considerations apply if the sort needs to be stable, but
surely this posting is long enough already. :)
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Isn't that beauty ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:24 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:26 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-12 09:32 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 11:36 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-12 20:15 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-12 10:00 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 15:03 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-03-12 15:27 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 15:34 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 15:13 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-12 10:43 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:10 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-12 11:22 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:48 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-12 20:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 00:57 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-13 02:19 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 06:14 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 01:48 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:49 +0100
[OT] AI - questions and answers (was Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not)) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-13 10:27 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 11:59 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-12 21:22 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 06:15 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 06:48 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-14 03:29 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-12 17:32 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 11:54 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 01:14 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-12 16:18 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 01:06 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 01:27 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 16:11 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 06:01 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-14 01:49 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 07:23 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-14 02:58 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 07:52 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 07:53 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-14 03:05 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:10 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-14 03:17 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:59 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 09:12 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-14 12:15 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 14:00 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 16:43 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-16 20:57 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 19:07 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-17 00:49 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-17 05:21 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-18 12:40 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-18 17:06 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-18 15:46 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-18 22:14 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-19 22:39 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-18 16:14 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-19 22:42 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-17 14:46 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-16 22:26 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-16 22:35 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 19:09 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-16 23:17 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 19:21 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-16 23:34 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-17 00:09 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 21:45 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-17 10:42 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-17 13:04 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-03-17 12:17 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-17 12:31 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 21:27 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-16 22:26 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-16 19:41 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-17 00:29 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-17 05:38 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-17 11:47 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-17 13:08 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-17 12:37 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-18 02:40 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-18 11:21 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-18 10:49 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-18 15:10 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-18 21:20 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-18 23:13 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 13:23 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-18 11:20 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-18 21:57 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-18 22:01 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-19 10:43 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 12:23 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-19 15:22 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-19 15:07 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 04:16 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 02:14 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 12:38 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 13:06 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 13:27 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-21 02:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 16:13 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 17:41 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 04:01 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 08:35 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 12:47 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 14:42 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-22 04:39 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-22 08:33 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-20 17:10 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-21 02:53 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-20 22:35 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-21 14:42 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-22 04:57 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 12:32 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-22 04:50 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-21 15:39 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-22 15:48 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-22 23:04 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-19 13:28 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 03:45 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 11:19 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-19 10:49 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-19 14:09 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-19 14:49 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 17:09 +0200
sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 17:29 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-19 18:33 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-19 21:40 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-19 23:53 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-20 00:15 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 05:05 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 12:58 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 12:53 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 13:13 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 13:26 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 15:08 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-20 13:43 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 15:51 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-20 14:47 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-22 02:03 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-22 04:03 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 15:13 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-07 02:22 +0300
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 21:00 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-07 09:37 +0300
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-07 21:54 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-09 16:06 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 09:04 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-11 19:55 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-07 14:46 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-07 20:04 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-09 21:15 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-10 01:31 +0300
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-12 06:17 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 21:32 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-12 04:59 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-09 23:33 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-10 11:35 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-12 07:13 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-13 20:44 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 14:01 +0200
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 13:48 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-07 01:58 +0300
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-07 01:02 +0100
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-07 08:01 -0700
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-19 23:21 +0000
Re: sorting Was: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 18:37 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-20 04:33 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-20 14:24 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-22 05:06 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-22 09:30 +0200
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-07 02:12 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-07 14:00 +0300
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-16 10:23 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-07 16:39 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-12 11:16 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-25 00:45 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 06:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-20 01:33 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 07:42 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-03-20 12:16 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-14 16:22 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 18:04 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-14 17:39 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 19:25 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-13 00:54 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 00:31 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 01:40 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 01:34 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-13 15:31 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-15 13:15 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-16 15:18 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-23 21:23 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-13 18:47 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-15 14:38 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 07:24 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 01:51 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:54 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-13 10:29 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 10:33 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 11:57 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 11:58 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-13 14:29 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:08 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 04:19 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:56 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-13 05:10 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 10:14 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-13 17:32 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 18:44 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-13 19:36 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 06:03 +0100
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-12 16:56 +0000
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-20 23:07 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-22 16:55 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-26 20:08 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-03-27 00:35 -0400
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 21:53 -0700
Re: Isn't that beauty ? (no it's not) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-03-27 17:03 +0000
csiph-web