On 10 February 2013 04:53, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Rick Johnson >> <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> My point was this: All mutate methods should mutate "in-place", if the >>> programmer wishes to create a mutated copy of the object, then the >>> programmer should /explicitly/ create a copy of the object and then apply >>> the correct mutator method to the copy. >> >> I agree. And we can go further and declare that there is only one data >> [sarcasm] > > I have to agree with Rick, I think requiring the user to explicitly > create a new object, which is already a good and widely-used practice, > should be the Only One Way to Do It.
Why should I copy a potentially large data structure just to iterate over it in reverse order? And why on earth would you want to remove the more efficient ways of doing this? > Guessing method names is far suboptimal to this simple, easy idiom. There is no guessing. If the object has a __reverse__ method then it specifically advertises that it knows how to create an iterator that gives its values in reverse order. Otherwise __len__ and __getitem__ are used. Oscar -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
