My code example is not proper, Yes, may be this is better:
list.sort().revers().
Other languages do this differently. JavaScript may return the sorted, while
C++ STL returns nothing.
I think that it maybe more important to let user have good knowledge about this
function then to have fluent code on some occasions.
I prefer to draw back this suggestion.
Regards！
At 2017-03-01 08:13:39, "Steven D'Aprano" <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:07:33AM +0800, qhlonline wrote:
>> Hi, all
>> I have a suggestion that, the sort() member method of the list
>> instance, should return the 'self' as the result of list.sort()
>> call.
>
>Having list.sort() and list.reverse() return self is a perfectly good
>design. The advantage is you can write things like this:
>
>list.sort().reverse()
>
>but the disadvantage is that it may fool people into thinking it returns
>a *copy* of the list. Python avoids that trap by returning None, so that
>you cannot write:
>
>sorted_items = items.sort()
>
>but instead people write:
>
>items = items.sort()
>
>so it seems that whatever we do, it will confuse some people.
>
>
>> Now list.sort() returns nothing, so that I can NOT write
>> code like this:
>>
>> res = {item: func(item) for item in item_list.sort()}
>
>What is the purpose of the sort? Because dicts are unordered, the
>results will be no different if you just write:
>
> d = {item: func(item) for item in item_list}
>
>
>--
>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/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
