Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: .. > Unfortunately, all tests pass with either comb >= comb1 or comb == comb1, so > before > I commit, I would like to figure out the test case that would properly > exercise this code. > After some more thought, I've realized that the comb > comb1 case is impossible if comb1 != 0 (due to canonical reordering step) and if comb1 == 0, the comb1 to comb comparison is not reached. In other words, it does not matter whether comparison is done as Martin suggested in msg120018 or as it is done in the latest patch. The fact that comb > comb1 case is impossible if comb1 != 0 is actually mentioned in PR 29 itself. See Table 1: Differences at http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-29.html. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10254> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
