On Tuesday 14 October 2003 05:31 am, Guido van Rossum wrote: ... > After reading this exchange, I'm not sure I agree with Tim about the > importance of avoiding to compare the full records. Certainly the > *cost* of that comparison doesn't bother me: I expect it's usually > going to be a tuple or list of simple types like ints and strings, and > comparing those is pretty efficient. I have and have seen many use cases where the things being sorted are dictionaries (comparisons can be costlier) or instances (they can be non-comparable). I agree that the "stable" nature of sorting is not all that important in our context. But avoiding whole-record comparison in the general case seems important enough to me that I'd accept any arbitrary non-comparing behavior (e.g. making the id of the thing being sorted the secondary key!-) rather than default to whole-record compares. Alex
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