Re: What behavior would you expect?

References	(1 earlier) <CANy1k1gMgGnqNcgTwjcqfYH-QctZthv89uXcU8SV9Uk6Wji=4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmpeYwsQ=XLu5WicVEnqMZpvKJueZRrM9WGafcEm1BFatg@mail.gmail.com> <CANy1k1j8ni7TtZPq_a2r8TUvY13rh0oY8xt-t6+9KPxwfAYEyw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmpq3t4qb+VD+uL6w+=_wf5v0BFThYFM+a8JAe2RDXpTYg@mail.gmail.com> <CANy1k1j+_boVW4EP=fijUKFVRctzD8EETm3kZ==eoezA=S=a6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date	2015-02-20 16:57 +1100
Subject	Re: What behavior would you expect?
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.18913.1424411875.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jason Friedman <jsf80238@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd still advise using my_list.sort() rather than sorted(), as you
>> don't need to retain the original.
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
> Trying to figure out what that looks like.
> If I understand correctly, list.sort() returns None.
> What would I return to the caller?

Check its docs: it sorts the list in place. So you return the list,
after you sort it. It's like appending to a list: None is returned and
the list itself is changed.

ChrisA

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: What behavior would you expect? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 16:57 +1100

csiph-web