> I've got a first draft patch (sans docs and tests) loaded at: > www.python.org/sf/823292 No time to review, so feedback just on this email. :-( > The argument keywords are: cmpfunc, key, reverse I'd suggest using 'cmp' instead of 'cmpfunc'. (Same argument as for 'key' vs. 'keyfunc'.) > The patch passes regression tests and a minimal set of basic > functionality tests which need to be expanded considerably. I'll need > to go back over this one in more detail to check: > > * Whether the code was inserted in the right place with respect to the > existing anti-mutation code. > > * Is the strategy of decorating in-place too aggressive? Decoration > consists of *replacing* each value x with (x, key(x)). Should be fine. AFAIR Tim's sort code sets the length of the list to 0, so accessing the list while it's being sorted is not supported anyway. > * Verify reference counting and error handling. Write unit tests and measure process size. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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