On 08.09.2016 00:41, Matt Gilson wrote:
I lurk around here a lot more than I actually post -- But in this case I find myself weighing in firmly on the side of "please don't add this". It'd just add noise in the documentation and __builtins__ namespace. There are millions of useful functions that /could/ be added to the `list` object (or to the `__builtins__` namespace). It's the job of the core dev team to decide which are the most useful for everybody and this is one where (in my opinion) the usefulness doesn't justify the additional clutter.
It seems like the primary argument for this is that some users would like to have this functionality baked into an interactive session.
Maybe, it wasn't obvious (despite I thought so), but I also don't see it in the built-ins. Another function in the "random" module would just suffice. But still, this is not my proposal, so I am gonna wait for what Arek brings up. Sven
If that's the case, then I'd like to point out that if you find yourself wanting this in an interactive session frequently there is an interactive startup file https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/appendix.html#the-interactive-startup-fil... that you can modify so that this function will always be available to /you/ whenever you start up an interactive session (and you can put whatever else in there that you like as well :-).
I hope that helps.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Sven R. Kunze
mailto:srkunze@mail.de> wrote: Maybe, there's a misunderstanding here and I hope I didn't waste too much of your and my time.
Not sure where I got this from but my last status was that Arek would like to have a "shuffled" function that does exactly what you described. Maybe, that doesn't fit the reports description but his pull request will tell the truth. :)
About the confusion of returning None. It's not confusing in the sense of "o my god, I did it wrong, I need to learn it", but more, like "I used shuffle, BECAUSE it's the only one I could find in a hurry" and then ascertain "why the heck is there no alternative returning the shuffled result instead of overwriting my list? I would expect this from Python as it already provides both alternatives for sorting".
Sven
On 08.09.2016 00:02, Tim Peters wrote:
[Sven R. Kunze
mailto:srkunze@mail.de>] I am not questioning experience which everyone in a team can benefit from.
BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting inconsistencies and bloody work-arounds. They simply haven't had to live with them for so long. Experienced devs just are stuck in a rut/are routine-blinded: "we've done that for years", "there's no better way".
That's the way we do it in our teams. Employing the new guys as some sort of inconsistency detectors. This way, they learn to find their way around the code base and they can improve it by doing so.
And I would never allow it in my team, to dismiss this kind of observation from new colleagues. It's invaluable as they will become routine-blinded as well.
I have been more than willing to discuss it, and I did not close the issue report. I did say I was opposed to it, but that's simply because I am, and I explained there too _why_ I was opposed.
Do you have anything to say about the specific proposal? I doubt either of us has found this meta-discussion useful. I'm still looking for a compelling use case. The only concrete thing anyone has noted in `shuffled()`'s favor so far is that sometimes they're surprised by the behavior of random.shuffle(list) returning None in an interactive shell (noted by you, and by another, and I cheerfully own up to being a bit surprised by that too long ago). But that's an observation about `random.shuffle()`, not about the proposed `shuffled()`.
[...] I would be far more annoyed if, e.g.,
random.shuffle(some_million_element_list)
swamped my terminal with mountains of output.
But you readily accept this behavior for "sorted"? That makes no sense at all.
Of course it does. The only analogy to random.shuffle(big_list) returning None that makes a lick of sense here is that big_list.sort() also returns None. IF a `shuffled()` function is introduced, then of course it should return its result - just like `sorted()` returns its result.
You can't both behaviors simultaneously, so the status quo wins. Indeed, the venerable status quo ;-)
Nobody said to change "shuffle".
A verbatim quote from the first message in this thread:
"Also shuffle() should return self so mutating methods could be chained."
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org mailto:Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
--
pattern-sig.png
Matt Gilson// SOFTWARE ENGINEER
E: matt@getpattern.com mailto:matt@getpattern.com// P: 603.892.7736
We’re looking for beta testers. Go here https://www.getpattern.com/meetpatternto sign up!