[Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de>]
> I am not questioning experience which everyone in a team can benefit from.
>
>
> BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that
> younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting
> inconsistencies and bloody work-arounds. They simply haven't had to live
> with them for so long. Experienced devs just are stuck in a rut/are
> routine-blinded: "we've done that for years", "there's no better way".
>
>
> That's the way we do it in our teams. Employing the new guys as some sort of
> inconsistency detectors. This way, they learn to find their way around the
> code base and they can improve it by doing so.
>
> And I would never allow it in my team, to dismiss this kind of observation
> from new colleagues. It's invaluable as they will become routine-blinded as
> well.
I have been more than willing to discuss it, and I did not close the
issue report. I did say I was opposed to it, but that's simply
because I am, and I explained there too _why_ I was opposed.
Do you have anything to say about the specific proposal? I doubt
either of us has found this meta-discussion useful. I'm still looking
for a compelling use case. The only concrete thing anyone has noted
in `shuffled()`'s favor so far is that sometimes they're surprised by
the behavior of random.shuffle(list) returning None in an interactive
shell (noted by you, and by another, and I cheerfully own up to being
a bit surprised by that too long ago). But that's an observation
about `random.shuffle()`, not about the proposed `shuffled()`.
>> [...] I would be far more annoyed if, e.g.,
>>
>> >>> random.shuffle(some_million_element_list)
>>
>> swamped my terminal with mountains of output.
> But you readily accept this behavior for "sorted"? That makes no sense at
> all.
Of course it does. The only analogy to random.shuffle(big_list)
returning None that makes a lick of sense here is that big_list.sort()
also returns None. IF a `shuffled()` function is introduced, then of
course it should return its result - just like `sorted()` returns its
result.
>> You can't both behaviors simultaneously, so the status quo wins.
>> Indeed, the venerable status quo ;-)
> Nobody said to change "shuffle".
A verbatim quote from the first message in this thread:
"Also shuffle() should return self so mutating methods could be chained."
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
