Paul Moore added the comment:
On 29 April 2015 at 19:42, Sergey B Kirpichev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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)
But that's a sort without a key. In Perl you do a key sort via:
@sorted = map { $_->[0] }
sort { $a->[1] <=> $b->[1] } # use numeric comparison
map { [$_, length($_)] } # calculate the length of the string
@unsorted;
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartzian_transform). That
computes the keys first, and would compute the key for a list of
length 1, just like Python does. It's just that Python bundles that
whole construct into the "key=" argument.
But it's your choice - if this is a big enough deal to put you off
Python, I guess no-one will be able to stop you. The fact of the
matter is that what Python does is documented behaviour, and the
benefit (small) isn't worth the cost of making a change (which would
only be in Python 3.5 and later anyway, as it's a backward
incompatible change, not a bug fix).
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24075>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
