Python 3.0 - is this true?

[Rhamphoryncus]

On Nov 10, 9:31 pm, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:25 pm, Steven D'Aprano
>
>
>
> <ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > 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
> >>> sorted([2, 1.5, Decimal('1.6'), 2.7, 2])
>
> [1.5, 2.7000000000000002, Decimal("1.6"), 2, 2]
>
> Where's my nickel? :P

Ahh, I knew I had a copy of the time machine keys burried in that
drawer..

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-December/059166.html