Brett Cannon writes:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:23 AM Jimmy Girardet <i...@netc.fr> wrote:
> > I would be happy to have
> >
> > >>> [1,2,3].append(4)::sort()::max() +1
> >
> > It makes things very easy to read: first create list, then append 4,
> > then sort, then get the max.
(Responding to the OP)
In most cases, where one doesn't care about performance, one can rewrite
as
max(a := sorted([1, 2, 3] + [4])) + 1
This also tells you something about readability. I find the
"dot-chaining" style easier to analyze than the nested function call
style, because the methods are applied left-to-right and few inline
operators are interpreted with right associativity -- note that this
is a runtime decision! Where I don't care about analysis at this
site, I define a function.
If I do care about performance, writing it out line by line helps to
emphasize that and to optimize well.
I think given the current design with its long history, it would be
more useful to identify pain points where functions like sorted()
don't exist.
> Also realize that design is on purpose so that mutating method
> calls on lists do not return themselves to get the point across
> that the mutation was in-place and not in fact a new list.
I have come to think that this is suboptimal. Now I would like to
experiment with a Python-like language where methods *always* return
self, and where returning something else makes sense, Python-oid
should provide a function that does that. Of course there would be an
exception for dunders.
It's not irritating enough to actually do this, though. :-)
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/
