Message65802
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, mark.dickinson |
| Date | 2008-04-25.18:47:57 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.019502955 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1209149282.65.0.442237787445.issue2690@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I guess there needs to be a decision on whether to make range objects of length >= PY_SSIZE_T_MAX illegal; perhaps more discussion on python-dev would be worthwhile? I can see three options, besides leaving things as they are: (1) make large ranges illegal, as with this patch (2) make large ranges legal, but don't allow indexing with indices larger than PY_SSIZE_T_MAX. (3) allow large ranges *and* large indices. Option 3 seems to me like the ideal from the users' point of view, but I'm not sure whether it's easy/possible to implement it given that sq_item receives a Py_ssize_t for the index. Option 2 seems messy: half of one thing and half of the other, but I think it would be easy to implement. This is what I'd personally prefer if Option 3 isn't feasible. If Option 1 is indeed the preferred option, then the patch looks good to me, and works for me on OS X 10.5. (Minor nitpick: it introduces some extra tab characters.) Whatever happens, we probably also need a documentation update explaining the limitations on range. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-04-25 18:48:03 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.019503 -> 0.019502955 recipients: + mark.dickinson, belopolsky |
| 2008-04-25 18:48:02 | mark.dickinson | set | spambayes_score: 0.019503 -> 0.019503 messageid: <1209149282.65.0.442237787445.issue2690@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-04-25 18:48:01 | mark.dickinson | link | issue2690 messages |
| 2008-04-25 18:47:59 | mark.dickinson | create | |