On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech wrote:
> I had a list
>
> a = [1, 2, 3]
>
> when I did
>
> a.insert(100, 100)
>
> [1, 2, 3, 100]
>
> as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at index
> 100 , it behaved like append instead of throwing any errors as I was tryin
Hi ,
Sorry for that mistake . Now I have posted it in python-list mailing
list .
Thanks for your guidance.
Harish
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Tal Einat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech
> wrote:
> > I had a list
> >
> > a = [1, 2, 3]
> >
> > when I did
> >
> >
FWIW I cannot reproduce the bug with Anaconda's Python 3.4.1 (from a
miniconda install):
$ python
Python 3.4.1 |Continuum Analytics, Inc.| (default, Sep 2 2014, 14:00:37)
[GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-1)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> fro
On Sat Sep 13 00:16:30 CEST 2014, Jeff Allen wrote:
> 1. Java does not really have a Unicode type, therefore not one that
> validates. It has a String type that is a sequence of UTF-16 code units.
> There are some String methods and Character methods that deal with code
> points represented
On 15/09/14 12:31, Tal Einat wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech wrote:
I had a list
a = [1, 2, 3]
when I did
a.insert(100, 100)
[1, 2, 3, 100]
as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at index
100 , it behaved like append instead of throwing an
On 15/09/2014 23:29, Mark Shannon wrote:
On 15/09/14 12:31, Tal Einat wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech
wrote:
I had a list
a = [1, 2, 3]
when I did
a.insert(100, 100)
[1, 2, 3, 100]
as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at
index
100 , it
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:46:03 +0100
Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> I assume it's based on the concepts of slicing. From the docs
> "s.insert(i, x) - inserts x into s at the index given by i (same as
> s[i:i] = [x])". Although shouldn't that read s[i:i+1] = [x] ?
No, the latter would replace the con
On 09/15/2014 03:46 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/09/2014 23:29, Mark Shannon wrote:
I think this is an OK forum for this question.
It isn't. ;)
If someone isn't sure if something is a bug or not, then why not ask
here before reporting it on the bug tracker?
The first stop should still
This functionality has existed since the earliest days of Python, and even
if we all agreed it was wrong we couldn't change it -- it would just break
too much existing code. I can't quite remember why I did it that way but it
was definitely a conscious choice; probably some symmetry or edge case.
(
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
>
> I assume it's based on the concepts of slicing. From the docs
> "s.insert(i, x) - inserts x into s at the index given by i (same as s[i:i]
> = [x])".
Ah, right. It matches thigs like s[100:] which is the empty string if s is
shorter tha
Jim J. Jewett writes:
> In terms of best-effort, it is reasonable to treat the smuggled bytes
> as representing a character outside of your unicode repertoire
I have to disagree. If you ever end up passing them to something that
validates or tries to reencode them without surrogateescape, BOOM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jim J. Jewett writes:
>
> > In terms of best-effort, it is reasonable to treat the smuggled bytes
> > as representing a character outside of your unicode repertoire
>
> I have to disagree. If you ever end up passing them to something th
12 matches
Mail list logo
