Martin v. Löwis wrote: > I think this would violate the policy that a mutating function shouldn't > give the object being modified as the result Well, it's a necessary violation, given the way the inplace methods work. And it doesn't *necessarily* return the same value, it might return a new object. So the return value conveys useful information, unlike with list.sort() et al. -- Greg
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