On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai < abpil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Anand Chitipothu > <anandol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >> > Don't use sorted(..., reverse=True). Instead reverse the list in place >> > by using reverse slicing of l[-1::-1], which is about 1.5 times faster. >> >> Why are you using [-1::-1] for reversing? Isn't [::-1] the python >> idiom for reversing a list? > > > I am used to [-1::-1] and "Explicit is better than implicit". > [::-1] gives (at least to me) the impression that it is equal to [0::-1] > which it is not. > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BangPypers mailing list >> BangPypers@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers >> > > > > -- > -Anand > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > > As a python newbie, I find this a bit annoying. It would be nicer to have a simple reverse method in the str class. name="The world according to Garp" # name.reverse() or str.reverse(name) sure beats the hell out of name[-1::-1] or name[::-1] Jayanth
_______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
