Message120355
> 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))".
Too fragile and subtle. The method need to be absolutely straight-forward. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-11-03 23:33:20 | rhettinger | set | recipients:
+ rhettinger, ezio.melotti, michael.foord |
2010-11-03 23:33:20 | rhettinger | set | messageid: <1288827200.55.0.716619606448.issue10242@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-11-03 23:33:19 | rhettinger | link | issue10242 messages |
2010-11-03 23:33:19 | rhettinger | create | |
|