lamby added the comment:
> order of other dicts are implementation detail.
Right, exactly :)
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29431>
___
_
lamby added the comment:
> ordering of namespace dict and kwargs dict are language spec for 3.6
Are they really _specced_ for 3.6? I was under the impression that it was just
an implementation detail.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyth
lamby added the comment:
> we're expecting we'll make that a language requirement
Mmm, but only for (at least) 3.7+. It would still be very useful to find
software that is relying on (currently) undefined behaviour, no?
--
___
Python t
lamby added the comment:
I think we are misunderstanding each other regarding our goals here :)
I'm not trying to test against other Python implementations or versions of
CPython itself but rather "flush out" reproducibility issues in third-party
Python code that (incorrectly)
lamby added the comment:
> If the package produce same binary when dict keeps insertion order,
> isn't it a "reproducible build"?
No, as that's a CPython-specific (and 3.6+) implementation detail. Hence
"forcing" a test for it :)
--
__
lamby added the comment:
> Why don't you use OrderdDict and reversed()?
This isn't for my own code; I want to change the behaviour of CPython itself so
it affects arbitrary third-party code - this is what we are testing when we are
testing for re
New submission from lamby:
Due to implementation changes, since CPython 3.6 dict keys are returned
in insertion order. However, in order to test for reproducible builds [0],
it would be convenient to be able to reverse this ordering; we would then
run a build of an arbitrary package both with
