[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 322: Reverse Iteration

Raymond Hettinger python at rcn.com
Wed Nov 5 06:52:11 EST 2003

> I'm slowly coming to accept it -- it's sure way more appropriate as a
> built-in than many that currently crowd the builtins namespace.

[Paul Moore]
> > 3. A general reversed() function seems theoretically useful, but the
> >    concrete use cases seem fairly thin on the ground. I'm broadly in
> >    favour, because I (possibly like Raymond) have a bias for clean,
> >    general solutions. But I can see that "practicality beats purity"
> >    may hold here.

> Funny, I originally felt queasy (about it being a built-in only) for
> "purity"
> about the overcrowded builtins namespace.  I'm seeing enough use
> cases (even if irange DID grow a wonderful reverse= optional arg...)
> that practicality is gradually winning me over.  I.e., practicality
> purity is what is winning me over, while to you it suggests dampening
> your "broadly in favour"...  we both mention iterating over sequences
> more than over indices, but to me that's a suggestion that reversed
> has a place
 . . .
> You have a point -- Raymond definitely HAS an overall vision on
> iterators &c and he's deserved lots of listening-to even though we
> can't quite see some specific point.

It appears that Alex has been won over to supporting reversed() as a

Among the comp.lang.python crowd, nearly everyone supported some form of
the PEP (with varying preferences on the name or where to put it).  The
community participation rate was high with about 120 posts across four
threads contributing to hammering out the current version of the pep.

Is there anything else that needs to be done in the way of research,
voting, or cheerleading for pep to be accepted?


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list