R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
In fact, I find the proposed syntax *less* obvious than the slice syntax, for
sorted. IOW, I'd be -1 on adding these to sorted. The potentially useful case
is between
l[a:b] = sorted(l[a:b})
vs
l.sort(start=a, stop=b)
where
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
I'm rejecting this feature request on the grounds that the use cases are
sufficiently uncommon to warrant adding API complexity.
Currently, the notions of reverse() and sort() are comparatively simple. They
correspond
Changes by Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
assignee: - rhettinger
nosy: +rhettinger
priority: normal - low
versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1491804
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.7, Python 3.1
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1491804
___
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:
I can't see any sense in doing a patch review on this until there is agreement
that the patch is actually needed. Having read the initially referenced thread
on groups.google.de I'm not convinced that this is going to happen.
Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com:
--
stage: - patch review
type: - feature request
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 -Python 2.5
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1491804
