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" <steve@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/