reading 5.patch over...

Any particular reason for using buf_size = 32 when the length isn't
known up front?  add a comment saying why (or that its just a magic
guess).  anyways it sounds like a fine starting value.  picking
anything "better" would require profiling.

perhaps use a list comprehension instead of map() in the unit test?
either works, its a style thing.

  (int(x) for x in orig*50)    [int(x) for x in orig*50]

also the uses of 5 and -5 in that test could be written using
len(orig) instead of 5.

add another assertRaises that tests to make sure a list with -1 in it
raises a ValueError.

While I dislike that this code makes a temporary copy of the data
first, doing otherwise is more complicated so the simplicity of this
one wins.  Leave that optimization for later.  Your code looks good.

-gps

On 12/2/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Alexandre Vassalotti added the comment:
>
> Done. Is there any other issue with the patch?
>
> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file8857/byte_extend-5.patch
>
> __________________________________
> Tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1283>
> __________________________________
>