On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:07:33AM +0800, qhlonline wrote:
> Hi, all
> I have a suggestion that, the sort() member method of the list
> instance, should return the 'self' as the result of list.sort()
> call.
Having list.sort() and list.reverse() return self is a perfectly good
design. The advantage is you can write things like this:
list.sort().reverse()
but the disadvantage is that it may fool people into thinking it returns
a *copy* of the list. Python avoids that trap by returning None, so that
you cannot write:
sorted_items = items.sort()
but instead people write:
items = items.sort()
so it seems that whatever we do, it will confuse some people.
> Now list.sort() returns nothing, so that I can NOT write
> code like this:
>
> res = {item: func(item) for item in item_list.sort()}
What is the purpose of the sort? Because dicts are unordered, the
results will be no different if you just write:
d = {item: func(item) for item in item_list}
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
