Author elliot.gorokhovsky
Recipients elliot.gorokhovsky, mdk, ppperry, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2017-03-12.04:05:17
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CANZJz4jk7iiM5LErtZ+OE41FCtt2EFt+8MbsuCWTwwd4oGt3EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1489291278.0.0.47941295317.issue28685@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:01 PM Tim Peters <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Elliot, I don't care if the example behaves differently.  Although someone
> else may ;-)
>
> The only things `.sort()` has ever tried to guarantee in the presence of
> mutations (of either the list or the elements) during sorting are that (a)
> the implementation won't segfault; and, (b) the list at the end is _some_
> permutation of the input list (no elements are lost or duplicated).
>
> If crazy mutation examples can provoke a segfault, that's possibly "a
> problem" - but different results really aren't (at least not to me).
>
>
That's great to hear. (Of course, one could always remove
unsafe_object_compare from the patch and keep the rest, but that would be a
real shame). I don't think segfaults are possible if the code is
pure-Python, because all the builtin/stdlib functions type-check anyway, so
you would just get an exception. Right? Of course, using the C API you
could probably provoke segfaults, but there are much easier ways to
segfault using the C API :).
History
Date User Action Args
2017-03-12 04:05:18elliot.gorokhovskysetrecipients: + elliot.gorokhovsky, tim.peters, vstinner, serhiy.storchaka, ppperry, mdk
2017-03-12 04:05:18elliot.gorokhovskylinkissue28685 messages
2017-03-12 04:05:17elliot.gorokhovskycreate