Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [Steven D'Aprano] > > > The Zen isn't "only one way to do it". If it were, we > > > wouldn't need iterators, list comps or for loops, > > > because they can all be handled with a while loop (at > > > various costs of efficiency, clarity or obviousness). > > > > > > del L[:] works, but unless you are Dutch, it fails the > > > obviousness test. > > [Fredrik Lundh] > > unless you read some documentation, that is. del on sequences > > and mappings is a pretty fundamental part of Python. so are slicings. > > > > both are things that you're likely to need and learn long before you > > end up in situation where you need to be able to clear an aliased > > sequence. > > Fred is exactly correct. Slicing is absolutely basic to Python. > Accordingly, it gets covered right at the beginning of the tutorial > (section 3.1).
Yes, right after UTF encoding details, complex numbers, and various mentions of shell scripts. I don't want to criticise the hard work that went into making the tutorial but let's not pretend it's the epitome of documentation or even necessary the most obvious reference for users. > Likewise, the del keyword is fundamental -- if you > can't get, set, and del, then you need to go back to collections > school. I have hardly used the del keyword in several years of coding in Python. Why should it magically spring to mind in this occasion? Similarly I hardly ever find myself using slices, never mind in a mutable context. del L[:] is not obvious, especially given the existence of clear() in dictionaries. I'm not necessarily requesting a clear() method, but I am requesting a little more understanding towards those who expected one. The list interface is full of redundant convenience methods, so one more would hardly be a surprise or an unreasonable thing for people to expect. Again we unfortunately have a bit of an attitude problem towards anyone posting here that doesn't know whatever the experts think is obvious. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
