Reversing a tuple and reversing a list returns objects of different type:
>>> reversed((1,2))
>>> revers
Basically, a list implements the __reversed__
method and returns an specialized object, while tuple
falls back to the default implementation of reversed
for any sequence:
>>> list.__reversed__
<method '__reversed__' of 'list' objects>
>>> tuple.__reversed__
AttributeError: type object 'tuple' has no attribute '__reversed__'
Now, why list does not default to the sequence reversed
object has to be found in the source code for the list object itself - probably it enables some optimizations by accessing directly some of internal list
attributes.
Actually looking at the C code, there is little difference, and certainly nothing that catches the eye -
I'd dare say the special list __reversed__
implementation is a leftover from Python2 days where reversed
would actually copy any other Python sequence to a list
- so there would be no sense for other sequences to have special cases for it (and when they did implement the general enumreverse
it was just good enough for tuples).
I am pretty sure that if one would simply comment out the __reversed__
slot on listobject.c
, Python and its lists would work as if nothing had happened, defaulting to the general case reversed
.
According to Python's documentation:
object.__reversed__(self)
Called (if present) by the
reversed()
built-in to implement reverse iteration. It should return a new iterator object that iterates over all the objects in the container in reverse order.If the
__reversed__()
method is not provided, thereversed()
built-in will fall back to using the sequence protocol (__len__()
and__getitem__()
). Objects that support the sequence protocol should only provide__reversed__()
if they can provide an implementation that is more efficient than the one provided byreversed()
.