Message65822
| Author |
gvanrossum |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, benjamin.peterson, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, pitrou, rhettinger |
| Date |
2008年04月25日.22:38:38 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.010468133 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<ca471dc20804251538t7bde42at2ddb5d1b653668f2@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1209163010.69.0.702141445677.issue2603@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Peterson <musiccomposition@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Yes, after thinking for a while, I decided that range equality should
> represent the set of integers and not the values in the constructor.
> Normalization would be a good idea, but I think that's another issue
> I'll tackle after this.
The two go hand-in-hand; you shouldn't have two range() objects that
compare equal and yet have different stop attribute values.
> Now you get an error for hashing a huge range.
>
> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10110/range_eq8.patch
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2603>
> __________________________________
> |
|