On Friday 19 September 2003 12:12 pm, Jeremy Fincher wrote: > On Friday 19 September 2003 04:33 am, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > > A few weeks ago I submitted a patch to add an rsplit() method to > > string and unicode objects: > > >Adding rsplit() to string and unicode objects. (2003-09-06) > > > http://python.org/sf/801847 > > I'm all for it. I've had to implement rsplit on my own as well, and always Seconded (or thirded, whatever). Actually had to do it just 3 days ago -- having a need for rsplit I in fact *wrote* my code as if it existed (didn't remember it wasn't there!!!), and it took a while to run tests and get the AttributeError, slap my forehead, and add a "def rsplit" function. I think it should be there by "principle of least surprise" -- experienced Python coders *expect* it to be there (and I offer myself as an example;-). > laden with. As long as they're named appropriately, I can't see the harm > in adding useful methods, especially one such as rsplit that completes a > set of front-to-back/back-to-front methods. Absolutely, but limited to those methods that "should" be there, for completeness, and because they're expected. rsplit is the outstanding one that I can think of right now (because I just happened to need it so recently, of course, and the coincidence of it being discussed now). Alex
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4