What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?
Andrew MacIntyre
andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au
Fri Sep 3 19:15:56 EDT 2004
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Sep 3 19:15:56 EDT 2004
- Previous message (by thread): What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?
- Next message (by thread): What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Marco Aschwanden wrote: > 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. This may be a language nuance, but neither "sort" nor "reverse" are past tense - they are verbs, which imply an action. In this sense they are totally appropriate as method names for inplace operations, as they signify actions applied to the object. "sorted" and "reversed" have past tense. As I recall, there was some discussion on the python-dev mailing list on names for these methods for the non-inplace versions of these operations; these were the outcome. There is no chance before Python 3000 that sort() and reverse() will change name - there is too much code to break. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia
- Previous message (by thread): What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?
- Next message (by thread): What about an EXPLICIT naming scheme for built-ins?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list