list.without()?

[Magnus L. Hetland]

"Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik at pythonware.com> writes:

> Magnus L. Hetland <mlh at vier.idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > Why on *earth* would you use a while/try/break-combination?
> 
> maybe because the meaning of "without a
> specified element" is unclear.  mike's version
> guarantees that:
> 
>     list.without(element)
>     assert element not in list
> 
> never fails, while your version behaves just
> like "remove" -- if there are several instances
> of an element value, only the first one is
> removed:
> 
>     count = list.count(element)
>     list.without(element)
>     assert count == 0 or list.count(element) == count-1

Oh - sorry about that. :)

My intended meaning was that implemented in my own routine, which made
me blind to the benefits of Mike's version. ;)

> 
> in either case, adding "without" (like remove, but
> returns a new list) strikes me as being even more
> contrived than earlier proposals like "sorted" (like
> sort, but returns a new list), etc.

Okay... I don't think that is contrived either, but I guess we just
disagree ;)

> 
> </F>
> 

--

  Magnus          Echelon jamming noise:
  Lie             FBI CIA NSA Handgun Assault Bomb Drug Terrorism
  Hetland         Special Forces Delta Force AK47 Hillary Clinton