Sergey B Kirpichev added the comment: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:44:22PM +0000, Paul Moore wrote: > I think the documentation is fine: > """ > The key corresponding to each item in the list is calculated once and then > used for the entire sorting process. > """
Does any "sorting process" make sense for [1] or []?! No, it isn't. So, it's not clear if this "process" started at all. This not just mine opinion - most computer languages implement the quick exit in question (see examples above). > It's a common computer science technique Could you provide any language that avoid this optimization? Here is Perl 5: http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/blob/HEAD:/pp_sort.c#l367 (third example) > Your existing code, with a check for Omega having length 1 and omitting > the sort in that case, looks entirely reasonable to me. (Well, then I should look for other languages, if Python devs insist in doing useless work...) > Maybe you could add a comment "Avoid a costly calculation of the > key when length is 1, as we know we don't need to sort then" I sure, for most people - the idea of sorting list with one element will look crazy. There is no room for any "costly calculations". (Common sense, nothing more.) So, such comment will add more questions... ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24075> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
