RetroSearch Browse

Thu Nov 21 23:22:41 CET 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130496.html

On 22 Nov 2013 04:12, "Christian Heimes" <christian at python.org> wrote:
>
> Am 21.11.2013 18:57, schrieb Tim Peters:
> > Best to change the failing tests.  For example, _they_ can sort the
> > dict keys if they rely on a fixed order.  Sorting in general is a
> > dubious idea because it can be a major expense with no real benefit
> > for most uses.
>
> I don't consider repr() as a performance critical function. It's mostly
> used for debugging.

+1 from me for fixing the tests (likely by checking the expected sort order
rather than assuming it) rather than changing the repr() implementations.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20131122/ddf39f04/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-November/130496.html below:

[Python-Dev] flaky tests caused by repr() sort order