David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> Armin Rigo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is an oversight in the design of __index__() that only just
>> surfaced :-( It is responsible for the following behavior, on a 32-bit
>> machine with >= 2GB of RAM:
>>
>> >>> s = 'x' * (2**100) # works!
>> >>> len(s)
>> 2147483647
>>
>> This is because PySequence_Repeat(v, w) works by applying w.__index__ in
>> order to call v->sq_repeat. However, __index__ is defined to clip the
>> result to fit in a Py_ssize_t.
>
> Clipping the result sounds like it would *never* be a good idea. What was
> the rationale for that? It should throw an exception.
Why would you expect range(10)[:2**32-1] and range(10)[:2**32] to do
different things?
Cheers,
mwh
--
This makes it possible to pass complex object hierarchies to
a C coder who thinks computer science has made no worthwhile
advancements since the invention of the pointer.
-- Gordon McMillan, 30 Jul 1998
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