On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:43:59 -0800, Rhamphoryncus wrote: > You might as well comment out the sort and call it good. That's what > you really had in 2.x. It was close enough most of the time to *look* > right, yet in truth it silently failed. 3.0 makes it an explicit > failure.
I don't doubt that this is correct, but I think the argument that sorting in Python 2.x has silent bugs would be much stronger if somebody could demonstrate arrays that sort wrongly. A shiny wooden nickel for the first person to show such an example! -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
