New submission from Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Enhancement to range to correctly handle indexing and slicing when len(x)
raises OverflowError.
Note that this enables correct calculation of the length of such ranges via:
def _range_len(x):
try:
length
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
Having started work on this, the code changes are probably too significant to
consider adding it to 3.2 at this late stage.
Writing my own slice interpretation support which avoids the ssize_t limit is
an interesting exercise :)
--
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
Attached patch moves range indexing and slicing over to PyLong and updates the
tests accordingly.
Georg, I think this really makes the large range story far more usable - if
you're OK with it, I would like to check it in this week so it lands
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
Oh, and to explain my negative comment from earlier: that was my reaction when
I realised I also needed to write PyLong versions of _PyEval_SliceIndex and
PySlice_GetIndicesEx to make range slicing with large integers work properly.
As it
Georg Brandl ge...@python.org added the comment:
It's a moderate chunk of code, but lots of new tests... I'd say go for it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10889
___
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
Committed as r87948.
I added a few large_range tests to those in the patch. I checked that
IndexError is raised when appropriate, as well as a specific test for the
combination of a large range with a large negative step.
--
Changes by Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - accepted
stage: - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10889
___
Changes by Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +mark.dickinson
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10889
___
___
