On 6/16/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. I don't want to add sorting abilities (with all its infinite
> variants) to every data structure -- or even one or two common data
> structures. You want something sorted that's not already a list? Use
> the sorted() method.
I meant
Agreed. I don't want to add sorting abilities (with all its infinite
variants) to every data structure -- or even one or two common data
structures. You want something sorted that's not already a list? Use
the sorted() method.
On 6/16/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hetting
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> May I suggest rejecting PEP 265.
>
> As of Py2.4, its use case is easily solved with:
>
> >>> sorted(d.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1), reverse=True)
> [('b', 23), ('d', 17), ('c', 5), ('a', 2), ('e', 1)]
+1.
I find that usually when I want something like this, I use:
May I suggest rejecting PEP 265.
As of Py2.4, its use case is easily solved with:
>>> sorted(d.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1), reverse=True)
[('b', 23), ('d', 17), ('c', 5), ('a', 2), ('e', 1)]
Further, Py2.5 offers a parallel solution to the more likely use case of
wanting the access only the l
