➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author belopolsky
Recipients Arfrever, barry, belopolsky, ezio.melotti, jhalcrow, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, valhallasw, vstinner
Date 2010-12-21.05:11:38
SpamBayes Score 1.0442118e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <AANLkTimu5rbO2C4J57WtBnkWn0UEgCcVkQLiJSQn=jAV@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1292874627.24.0.146076452418.issue10254@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
<report@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.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-12-21 05:11:39belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, barry, pitrou, vstinner, ezio.melotti, Arfrever, jhalcrow, valhallasw
2010-12-21 05:11:38belopolskylinkissue10254 messages
2010-12-21 05:11:38belopolskycreate