Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> writes: > 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. Yeah, that's mainly what I meant by my post. Currently if I want guarantees that the sort is stable on any future Python I have to manually DSU. If DSU is going to be internalized I'd like some way to guarantee stability (if that involves no arguments at all, great). -- Christopher A. Craig <list-python-dev at ccraig.org> "It's a fairly embarrassing situation to admit that we can't find 90 percent of the universe." Bruce H. Margon (astrophysicist)
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