Python 3.0 - is this true?

[Steven D'Aprano]

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