Madison May added the comment:
Reversed doesn't make sense for all iterables.
>>> a = set([1, 2, 3])
>>> a = iter(a) # No error
>>> a = reversed(a) # Not typically desirable
The point is that not all iterables are necessarily ordered. And a reversed
function shouldn't operate on unordered types.
Here's the relevant section of the docs for reversed():
reversed(seq)
Return a reverse iterator. seq must be an object which has a
__reversed__() method or supports the sequence protocol (the
__len__() method and the __getitem__() method with integer
arguments starting at 0).
Your point about the sorted()'s behavior seems like a fair one, though. Perhaps
it does make sense to support implicit conversion to lists for generator
objects passed to reversed().
----------
nosy: +madison.may
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue18826>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
