On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:47:49PM -0300, Danilo J. S. Bellini wrote: > Though I agree with the argument that inexperienced developers are > [usually] worse, that's not the case here, unless anyone here is really > trying to say the ones arguing for or against "shuffled" are inexperienced. > These ad hominem won't bring us anywhere.
That is not what I said. Please be careful of accusing others of things they didn't say. It was Sven who made the claim that inexperienced developers are better at seeing inconsistancies. I was responding specifically to that claim. I'm not saying anything about the experience, or lack of, of either Sven or Arek. > No one seem to be arguing if "shuffled" is inconsistent, but the "shuffle" > consistency is a subject that didn't reach consensus. And the point now > seem to be whether "shuffled" is useful or not. If I understood correctly, > that proposal is about writing code in a more functional style (or a > expression-oriented programming style), with a pure function for shuffling. > > I think there are other related subjects that can be said about > sorted/shuffled. For example: why a list? Why not a generator? You cannot sort a sequence lazily. You have to sort the entire sequence before you can be sure which item comes first. Making sorted() an iterator by default doesn't give you any advantage: it still has to sort the entire sequence before it can yield the first item. > Something > like random.choice is useful to get one single value, but if one just want > to see a few random values from a large input without repeating the values, > what's the best approach? random.sample() > Does that mean you expect Python to provide appended() [...] extended() > > [...] > > > Doesn't the "+" operator do that? Of course it does. But the "consistency" argument would be "why is append a method not an operator? Why isn't + called appended?". That's just spelling. It isn't that important. > > [...] list.cleared()? > > Huh? OP is clearly talking about avoiding state, avoiding "in-place" > operations. A clear list would be an empty list []. Of course. We can see that. But again, that's "inconsistent": * the in-place operation is spelled `list.clear()` * the functional operation is spelled `[]` There is nothing wrong with that. The value of consistency is grossly exaggerated. Sometimes it really doesn't matter if similar operations are spelled differently. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
