On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:33:31 +0100, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:55:35 +0000
> Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> > Having a more efficient 'slow-path' and moving to that by default would
> > fix it. The bug is only a duplicate of the bug in sorted - caused by the
> > fact that sets / frozensets can't be sorted in the standard Python way
> > (their less than comparison adheres to the set definition). This is
> > something that will probably surprise many Python developers:
> >
> > >>> a = [{2,4}, {1,2}]
> > >>> b = a[::-1]
> > >>> sorted(a)
> > [set([2, 4]), set([1, 2])]
> > >>> sorted(b)
> > [set([1, 2]), set([2, 4])]
> >
> > (Fixing the bug in sorted would fix assertItemsEqual ;-)
>
> How is this a bug? The sort algorithm is stable, which means the above
> behaviour is a feature. I see no easy way of eliminating the O(n*n)
> issue. Custom key functions can't work in all cases.
Even granting some theoretical way to sort sets by their contents, it
still wouldn't be a bug in sorted. Sorted is just using the results
returned by '__lt__', which is what it should do. Special casing sets
in sorted would be wrong.
--
R. David Murray www.bitdance.com
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