On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 11:41, Carsten Haese wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 11:31, Gabriel Genellina wrote: > > At Tuesday 24/10/2006 04:35, Cameron Walsh wrote: > > > > > > c = set(B) > > > > a.sort(key=c.__contains__, reverse=True) > > > > > > > > Tim Delaney > > > > > >Depressingly simple. I like it. > > > > ...and fast! > > ...and not guaranteed to be correct: > > http://www.python.org/doc/2.3.5/lib/typesseq-mutable.html states: > > """ > Whether the sort() method is stable is not defined by the language (a > sort is stable if it guarantees not to change the relative order of > elements that compare equal). In the C implementation of Python, sorts > were stable only by accident through Python 2.2. The C implementation of > Python 2.3 introduced a stable sort() method, but code that intends to > be portable across implementations and versions must not rely on > stability. > """ > > -Carsten
And I noticed a bit to late that the search on python.org lead me to an outdated version of the docs. The current documentation states that "Starting with Python 2.3, the sort() method is guaranteed to be stable." However, it's not clear whether this specifies language behavior that all implementations must adhere to, or whether it simply documents an implementation detail of CPython. -Carsten -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
