Steve Bethard writes: > On Jan 8, 2008 3:55 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2008 2:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > list.sort() and built-in sorted() are the least of our problems: even > > > though the API uses cmp, the implementation actually only ever uses > > > '<'; and the preferred API is to use the 'key' argument instead of > > > passing a compare function; that's much more efficient. > > > > > > Maybe we should retire the compare function completely in 3.0? > > > > > > > +1 from me. I personally have always hated the whole, -1, 0, 1 style > > of comparison anyway. > > +1 from here too. I've found it frustrating that the first argument > to sort() and sorted() is the least useful. ;-)
I'm a bit baffled here; I find cmp() fairly handy in writing sort routines: newlist = oldlist.sort(lambda v1, v2: cmp(v1.attr_x, v2.attr_x)) Is there a better / newer / official way of doing this? If not, isn't "cmp()" still useful to have around? (Bear in mind that I still use the 2.3.5 dialect of Python as much as possible, due to the continued widespread deployment of Mac OS X 10.4. So my style may be out-of-date.) Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
