list.reverse()

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> 
> The reasoning goes along the lines of, "reverse in place is an expensive 
> operation, so we don't want to make it too easy for people to do".  At 
> least that's the gist of what I got out of the argument the many times it 
> has come up.


It's not about the storage - it is about the in-place-modification. The 
reasioning is that people otherwise could assume that

a = [1, 2]
b = a.reverse()
assert a[0] == 1 and b[0] == 2

would hold, but instead of course "a" is changed.

Using reversed as

b = reversed(a)

will make that assumption hold.

Diez