Conversation
this was a mechanical fix this could probably be cleaned up.
|
So, while I like the idea of merging things in, I'd actually like it, for something like this, I have a question. For example, I don't
It seems like these are small changes that are part of a larger pull request; that is, there should be a series of commits terminating in one merge request, and that merge request should fix the Python 2/3 problem completely. Reviewing a whole bunch of one-line merge requests feels awfully tedious. Given that we're establishing process, I'm just trying to understand how (for something like this) I'm supposed to support the process, given that I don't have everything in place yet. (I'm still trying to get the 32/64-bit issues worked out, so I have a reliable TVM-based build. |
|
Sorry this was my bad, I meant to comment on this last night as I found a bunch more python3 issues to leave this pull request for now. In regards to your points
|
On this note, you can review commits in a pull request, so if you leave a comment you don't have re-review code. Pull requests can be updated in situ, with more work as it's done. What you suggested is ideal, however I like to commit regularly and get feedback if early before too much work need redoing if choices were bad. |
|
Sure thing. In case it wasn't obvious, this was more a learning question for me, and Thank you.
|
|
I have a logic error here somewhere I think... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could do with some help converting this one into a keys= statement.
|
Apologies for the delayed response -- I don't think github notified me about the inline comment! The way to fix that one is to turn compare_symbols into a function that returns the key for a symbol. You could also use enumerate() rather than the explicit counter. So something like (untested): |
|
That also leaves only one call to safe_sorted, so you could probably just use list(sorted(...)) at the bottom too. |
fixing dict_keys is not subscriptable.
work towards #5