++imanshu wrote: > On Aug 22, 8:40 am, John Machin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Aug 22, 1:35 pm, John Machin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Aug 22, 12:12 pm, "++imanshu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > Hi, >> >> > > Is there a reason why two similarly named functions Sorted and >> > > Reversed return different types of data or is it an accident. >> >> > You seem to have an interesting notion of "similarly named". >> > name0[-2:] == name1[-2:], perhaps? The two functions (eventually, in >> > the case of "reversed") return data in the order one would expect from >> > their names. >> >> > >>> x = [1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6] >> > >>> sorted(x) >> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] >> > >>> reversed(x) >> >> > <listreverseiterator object at 0x00AA5550> >> >> > >>> list(reversed(x)) >> > [6, 4, 2, 5, 3, 1]- >> >> Sorry; having re-read the message subject: >> >> reversed came later; returning an iterator rather than a list provides >> more flexibility. >> >> Cheers, >> John > > I agree. Iterator is more flexible. Together and both might have > returned the same types.
It's easy to generate a reversed sequence on the fly but impractical for a sorted one. Python is taking the pragmatic approach here. Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
