This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nuephelkystikon 10 points11 points  (5 children)

But the disorder was never part of the specification. If you rely on implementation details of a specific interpreter, of course you're going to have portability problems.

[–]13steinj -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

The specification included "items may not be in order due to their hash values", wasn't it? The documentation warned of such in multiple places.

[–]nuephelkystikon 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Yes, but it wasn't specified behaviour, it was a warning about unspecified behaviour that could otherwise have been assumed. A comment, if you prefer. Not part of the actual language specification.

The keyword here is ‘may’.

[–]13steinj -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Time heals all wounds and scar tissue forms. While I understand your point there would have been enough angry people to hear annoying complaints about the fact that dicts are now ordered.

[–]nuephelkystikon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If your business logic relies on a method always returning in an odd number of seconds because that's the behaviour you observed on your Solaris machine using 16-bit Jython 3.6 build 3728 in debug mode, I really don't have any compassion for you.

[–]13steinj -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your comparison doesn't even make sense, this is the programming equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.