Benjamin Peterson added the comment: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015, at 13:25, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > > Sergey B Kirpichev added the comment: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:25:19PM +0000, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > So, basically you need a base case for recursion? What's wrong with > > explicitly writing that out? > > Because it's complex (and costly). This is not a trivial test and > I don't see reasons to fix that is not broken. And it will be difficult > to explain for readers: remember, I need this exceptional case only in > the world with a strange Python's convention (Python try to sort a list > when it doesn't make sense). > > Mathematical algorithm is not broken - programming language is. > > Here is C: > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=stdlib/msort.c;#l45 > Here is Ruby: > https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/array.c#L2454
I don't understand the analogy, since neither of these two have key functions. > > > It's practical if you have a broken key function and test it with a one > > element list. > > It's silly to test key function on a single-element list *only*. > > > > BTW, why this issue was closed? > > > > 3 of us agreed this doesn't seem like a suitable change. > > And 1 seems to be ok with patch. Is this just a question of > number of votes? I should also clarify that Raymond and Mark and responsible for maintaining most of the algorithmic/data structure code in Python. > > At least, please consider this as a documentation issue. That ... > feature may be obvious for a Python developer, but not for > mathematician (as well as ordinary Python user). This is probably impossible to prove either way. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
