Elliot Gorokhovsky added the comment: On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:01 PM Tim Peters <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> > Elliot, I don't care if the example behaves differently. Although someone > else may ;-) > > The only things `.sort()` has ever tried to guarantee in the presence of > mutations (of either the list or the elements) during sorting are that (a) > the implementation won't segfault; and, (b) the list at the end is _some_ > permutation of the input list (no elements are lost or duplicated). > > If crazy mutation examples can provoke a segfault, that's possibly "a > problem" - but different results really aren't (at least not to me). > > That's great to hear. (Of course, one could always remove unsafe_object_compare from the patch and keep the rest, but that would be a real shame). I don't think segfaults are possible if the code is pure-Python, because all the builtin/stdlib functions type-check anyway, so you would just get an exception. Right? Of course, using the C API you could probably provoke segfaults, but there are much easier ways to segfault using the C API :). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28685> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com