On 29 nov, 04:11, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stef Mientki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > although I find it rather non-intuitive. > > I didn't expect a copy, but a reference to itself wouldn't be asked > > too much ? > > If you didn't expect a copy, why rely on the return value? You could > simply continue using the sorted list. Your first post says "I'm > trying to sort a list, using the same list at the commandline works, > but in a program it doesn't." > > > Why does it return None, instead of the sorted object itself ? > > I guess it would cost almost exactly the same processing power. > > It's not about processing power at all, it's about clarity. Code that > says: > > foo = [5, 2, 3, 1] > bar = foo.sort() > > might run into a nasty surprise upon finding that both foo and bar > point to the same (sorted) list. Returning None ensures that the > error is detected as early as possible. > > Returning a list strongly indicates that a copy is being made. For > example, the following Perl code: > > @foo = (3, 2, 1); > @bar = sort @foo; > > makes @bar sorted, but leaves @foo alone.
try >>> foo = [5, 2, 3, 1] >>> bar = sorted(foo) >>> foo [5, 2, 3, 1] >>> bar [1, 2, 3, 5] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
