On Wed, Oct 15, 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > That sounds like an extremely roundabout way of doing it; *if* there > had to be a way to request a stable sort, I'd say that specifying a > 'stable' keyword would be the way to do it. But I think that's > unnecessary. > > Given that the Jython folks had Tim's sort algorithm translated into > Java in half a day, I don't see why we can't require all > implementations to have a stable sort. It's not like you can gain > significant speed over Timsort. But in the discussion leading up to adopting Timsort, you (or Tim, same difference ;-) explicitly said that you didn't want to make any doc guarantees about stability in case the sort algorithm changed in the future. I don't have an opinion about whether we should keep our options open, but I do think there should be a clearly explicit decision rather than suddenly assuming that we're going to require Python's core sort to be stable. -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4