What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?

[Marco Aschwanden]

I just read the changes for 2.4 and while scanning the list the past tense 
built-ins got my attention:

sorted() - a new builtin sorted() acts like an in-place list.sort() but 
can be used in expressions, as it returns a copy of the sequence, sorted.

reversed() - a new builtin that takes a sequence and returns an iterator 
that loops over the elements of the sequence in reverse order (PEP 322)


sort() works in-place.
reverse() works in-place.

The past tense of sort() indicates that a copy of the sequence is returned.
The past tense of reverse() indicates that an iterator over the original 
sequence is returned.

To my eyes it lacks a bit of consistency... well both past-tense functions 
return something (but different somethings although the concepts behind 
sorting and reversing are similar - a possible future trap for the faq).

It is a common trap that sort() and reverse() work in-place. Any tutorial 
will warn you and still users fall into the trap over and over again... 
One should take this as a usability weakness of the language!

<opinion>
I would like to see Python introducing a naming scheme for built-ins. Ruby 
for example uses the ! to indicate an in-place function [sort() vs. 
sort!()]. I know, that the exclamation mark is out of discussion but I 
would appreciate to have a clear and distinct function naming (Explicit is 
better than implicit).

An example but not very well thought out:

sort_inpl() -> in-place returns nothing
sort_copy() --> returns a sorted copy
sort_iter() -> returns an iterator over the original sequence
sort_copy_iter() -> returns an iterator on a copied and sorted sequence

</opinion>

What do you think about a naming scheme? Do you have any proposals/ideas?

Regards,
Marco