Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Completely agree on all points. Now we're just left with "is it worth >> expanding the str api for this?". I don't feel strongly either way. > > For something as core as the string API, we better feel darn strongly > about it before we mess with it :) > > I'm inclined to leave it alone unless/until Raymond or somebody else > steps up to really champion it. I'm okay with that. > P.S. There's also the language moratorium to consider - since this idea > affect the methods of a builtin type, I believe the moratorium applies. I don't think there's any effort to get this in before the moratorium expires. Eric.
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