Benjamin Peterson added the comment: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015, at 11:03, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > > Sergey B Kirpichev added the comment: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 02:32:34PM +0000, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > Why does your key function depend on the size of the list? > > Because it's a real life. Here is the code: > https://github.com/skirpichev/omg/blob/gruntz-use-subs/sympy/series/gruntz.py#L337 > > Algorithm is recursive and computation of MRV set will be finished only > if I add an exceptional case for len(Omega). Or even more ugly solution > with cmp-style function: > https://github.com/skirpichev/omg/blob/efc70377639f78fc0f246629989056cb80a71923/sympy/series/gruntz.py#L339
So, basically you need a base case for recursion? What's wrong with explicitly writing that out? > > > Considering calling the key function is observable behavior, I don't think > > this > > should be changed. The patch makes behavior list.sort() inconsistent. > > Yes, in some sense. > > On another hand, it's reasonable to believe that key function will be > called iff we need one. But if there is nothing to sort at all - why do > sorting, why you want to call key function? Looks irrational to me. > > Last by not least. Why the return value of the key function *must* > be defined in this case? Just a hidden, undocumented restriction and > has no practical value. It's practical if you have a broken key function and test it with a one element list. > > BTW, why this issue was closed? 3 of us agreed this doesn't seem like a suitable change. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
