very good reasons?

["Jürgen A. Erhard"]

>>>>> "Glyph" == Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph at no.spam> writes:

    Glyph> Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> writes:
    >> >If you could write
    >> >
    >> >  sorted_arr = arr.sort()
    >> >
    >> >then people might get surprised that arr changed.
    >> 
    >> Well, I had thought of that, but it didn't really seem compelling to me: I can't
    >> find anything in Tim's "Python Philosophy"* that it specifically violates.
    >> 
    >> (unlike-some-of-2.0's-new-features-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

    Glyph> "Explicit is better than implicit."

    Glyph> If you say "sorted = arr.sort(); foo(sorted)", you're only implying
    Glyph> that arr changed, whereas if you say "arr.sort(); foo(arr)" you're
    Glyph> stating it explicitly.

If I see "sorted = arr.sort();" I assume arr is unmodified... so
nothing's implicit.

I like the "non-destructive is the most natural" philosophy of
(Common) Lisp better than ".sort is destructive" (= in-place).

Bye, J

-- 
Jürgen A. Erhard    juergen.erhard at gmx.net   phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
     MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html
              WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined
             that whatever you have in mind is bad for you
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20001002/2099e842/attachment.sig>