Steven D'Aprano a écrit : (snip) > def myreversed(sequence): > if isinstance(sequence, basestring): > return type(sequence)().join(reversed(sequence)) > else: > return type(sequence)(reversed(sequence)) > > (in fact, that's so simple I wonder why the built-in reversed() doesn't > do that).
Because it returns an iterator, not a sequence. Building back the appropriate sequence type from when needed it is usually a definitive no-brainer, and there are case where you definitively *don't* want a full sequence to be built (like when iterating backward over a millions-element long list...). Definitively the right design choice here IMHO. My 2 cents -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
