Agreed. I don't want to add sorting abilities (with all its infinite
variants) to every data structure -- or even one or two common data
structures. You want something sorted that's not already a list? Use
the sorted() method.
On 6/16/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > May I suggest rejecting PEP 265.
> >
> > As of Py2.4, its use case is easily solved with:
> >
> > >>> sorted(d.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1), reverse=True)
> > [('b', 23), ('d', 17), ('c', 5), ('a', 2), ('e', 1)]
>
> +1.
>
> I find that usually when I want something like this, I use:
> sorted(d, key=d.__getitem__, reverse=True)
> because it doesn't require the operator module and most of the time I
> just need the keys anyway.
>
> py> sorted(d, key=d.__getitem__, reverse=True)
> ['b', 'd', 'c', 'a', 'e']
>
> Steve
> --
> You can wordify anything if you just verb it.
> --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
