> Unless some _opportune_ (i.e., truly good:-) use case of "naturally > reversible nonsequence" (doubly linked list...?-) arises (and the > __reversed__ idea can inserted then -- just as it could be removed > if reversed started out with it -- as long as we do it before the beta) > reversed with or without __reversed__ seem anyway fine to me -- > arguments being so finely balanced on both sides. It's more effort to add something later than to remove it (since there's always *someone* who's already dependent on it), so I see the argument about adding __reversed__ far from balanced. I see at most a 5% chance that reversed() would be removed before 2.3b1. If we add __reversed__ now I doubt that we'll remove it (assuming reversed() stays), but I still am unconvinced of the need (and I *am* convinced of the danger). So: - I am +1 on adding reversed() provisionally - I am -1 on adding __reversed__ at the same time --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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