[Tim Peters]
> > 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,
[Michael Chermside]
> 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().
Are you proposing something like:
print mylist.sort(inplace=False) # prints a new, sorted list while
# leaving the original list intact
which would be implemented something like this:
def inlinesort(alist, *args, **kwds):
newref = alist[:]
newref.sort(*args, **kwds)
return newref
If that is what you're after, I think it is a good idea. It avoids the
perils of mutating methods returning self. It is explicit and pleasing
to write:
for elem in mylist.sort(inplace=False):
. . .
It is extra nice in a list comprehension:
peckingorder = [d.name for d in duck.sort(key=seniority,
inplace=False)]
Instead of "inplace=False", an alternative is "inline=True".
Raymond Hettinger
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