On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Michael Foord <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 16:23, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Looking at assertItemsEqual, I'd be inclined to insert a check that
>> falls back to the "unorderable_list_difference" approach in the case
>> where "expected != sorted(reversed(expected))"
>
> If that is sufficient then it would be a nice way of keeping the fast path.
As far as I can tell, that check is a valid partial ordering detector
for any sequence that contains one or more pairs of items for which
LT, EQ and GE are all False:
>>> seq = [{1}, {2}]
>>> seq[0] < seq[1]
False
>>> seq[0] == seq[1]
False
>>> seq[0] > seq[1]
False
>>> sorted(seq)
[{1}, {2}]
>>> sorted(reversed(sorted(seq)))
[{2}, {1}]
Obviously, if the sequence doesn't contain any such items (e.g. all
subsets of each other), then it will look like a total ordering and
use the fast path. I see that as an upside :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
