From: Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> > While we're hacking on [].sort(), how horrible would it be if we > modified it to return self instead of None? BDFL: > -1000. This is non-negotiable. [Barry's blissful demo code snipped] +1 Just 998 votes to go - nice to have a precise value on BDFL pronouncements. No voting twice with bigger numbers! ;-) I think just about everyone gets tripped up by the "sort returns None" behavior, and though one (e.g., BDFL) can declare that it is a less significant stumble than not realizing the list is sorted in place, it is a _continuing_ inconvenience, with virtually every call to [].sort, even for Python experts (like Barry, not me). Small-ongoing-issue-trumps-one-time-surprise-ly y'rs, kb PS. Just realized I made a similar post over 6 years ago. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=w4niv00k9sc.fsf%40jamaica.cs.byu.edu Does that mean I should just give it up already, or does it emphasize that it is an ongoing issue? Though I still like the fact that the change would not break /any/ existing code...
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4