Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:13:27 +1000
> From: Greg Ewing [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> email@example.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard):
> > The advantage is that the `.sorted()' method fits well within how
> > Python has evolved recently, offering more concise and legible
> > writings for frequent idioms.
> To support specialised non-in-place sorting algorithms,
> it could check whether its argument has a sorted()
> method, and if not, fall back on the general implementation.
Hmm - this actually suggests a couple more magic methods:
corresponding to "sort a copy" and "sort in-place".
Defining the rules for how these would be called requires a bit more thought
however. Do you want a sort() function to prefer __sort__ or __isort__?
def sort (seq, in_place=1):
seq = list(seq)
So - if an in-place sort is specified, try to do one, throwing an exception
if it's not possible. Otherwise sort a copy.
This would allow a generic mechanism for objects to ort copies of
themselves, rather than blindly changing them to a list.
Would two methods be better for in-place and copy sort?