Richard Arts writes: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> >> Meanwhile, I have decided to prefer this: >> >> def palindromep(s): >> def reversed(s): >> return s[::-1] >> return s == reversed(s) > > That seems like a bit of overkill... Why would you want to define a > function in a function for something trivial like this? Just > > def palindrome(s): > return s[::-1] > > will do fine.
I'm sure your version will do something just fine, but what that something is, I can not tell. The body of your version is quite obscure and does not seem to agree with the name of the function. I find (s == reversed(s)) a clearer expression than (s == s[::-1]), and I found a simple way to use my preferred expression. > Of course, you can stick the inner function in a library somewhere > if you like. From my point of view, it would be an understatement to say that setting up a library for this would be an overkill. A simple local auxiliary function is nothing. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
