On 5/28/23 7:32 PM, Samuel Muldoon wrote:
My understanding is that it is a deliberate choice that mutating member functions return NONE, rather than the object (to allow chaining) because otherwise it is too easy to think it return a new copy of the object (like operation that aren't mutations).*Currently, list.extend does not allow method chaining.* * * *parameters = [ "zero or more", "zero or more".upper(), "zero or more".lower(), "Zero or More" * *].extend(["(0, +inf)", "[0; +in**f]"])* * * *parameters.extend(["{0, \u221E}"]).append("(0 inf)") * * **Samuel Muldoon*
Thinking you got a new copy when you are working with the original object gives hard to find problems.
Since the operations return NONE, mistakenly trying to chain hits an obvious, and normally easy to fix error.
It just says that "chaining" has become less pythonic. -- Richard Damon _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/YNH65BFGOLMC3BLRB4NCN6ADSXAWWDZ2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
