On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 16:23, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Looking at assertItemsEqual, I'd be inclined to insert a check that
>> falls back to the "unorderable_list_difference" approach in the case
>> where "expected != sorted(reversed(expected))"
>
> If th
On 01/11/2010 16:23, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:33 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
Or, to put it another way, *if* there is a bug here it would be in set,
not sorted.
Put me in the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" camp. Providing a
"elements equal" check that doesn't rely on LT pr
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:33 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> Or, to put it another way, *if* there is a bug here it would be in set,
> not sorted.
Put me in the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" camp. Providing a
"elements equal" check that doesn't rely on LT providing a total
ordering is a non-trivia
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:14:36 -, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 15:10, R. David Murray wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:26:19 -, Michael
> > Foord wrote:
> >> Well, bug is the wrong word as it is obviously an intended feature (or
> >> consequence of a feature). I still think, give
On 01/11/2010 15:10, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:26:19 -, Michael Foord
wrote:
On 01/11/2010 11:33, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:55:35 +
Michael Foord wrote:
Having a more efficient 'slow-path' and moving to that by default would
fix it. The bug is
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:26:19 -, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 11:33, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:55:35 +
> > Michael Foord 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 i
On 01/11/2010 11:33, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:55:35 +
Michael Foord 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
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:33:31 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:55:35 +
> Michael Foord 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 / fro
