Tim writes:
> That said, since we're having a fire sale on optional sort arguments in 2.4,
> I wouldn't oppose an optional Boolean argument you could explicit set to
> have x.sort() return x. For example,
I just wanted to call everyone's attention to the fact that Tim may
(again... <sigh>) have come up with a decent idea.
Seriously... Guido (and apparently Tim and I too) insist that aList.sort()
must return None since it mutates the list. Meanwhile, Kevin, Barry, and
perhaps others want to be able to write aList.sort().reverse().chainMoreHere().
But both sides could probably be happy with:
aList.sort(chain=True).reverse()
Right?
-- Michael Chermside
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