Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
Oh, I don't agree that it's "broken" either. There's still no real-world test case here demonstrating catastrophic behavior, neither even a contrived test case demonstrating that, nor a coherent characterization of what "the problem" is. I'm nevertheless open to making improvements, but keeping in mind foremost that _all_ changes are potentially damaging to patterns of data we know nothing about precisely because they've been working fine for many years. So, e.g., there's no chance that gratuitous changes will be accepted. For example, don't _like_ adding 97531UL at the end? Tough luck - it's staying, and it's not worth one word of argument. To my eyes, the _strongest_ case in all these messages is for boosting the multiplier size on 64-bit boxes. That's principled and well-motivated. Python itself changed the multiplier from 3 to 1000003 long ago for the same reasons. But that apparently has nothing to do with "the problem" this report was opened about ;-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34751> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
