Guido wrote:
> Note that this is not as powerful as string.join(); the latter works
> on any sequence, not just on lists and tuples. (Though that may not
> be a big deal.)
>
> I also find it slightly objectionable that this is a general list
> method but only works if the list contains only strings; Dave Ascher's
> generalization to reduce() is cute but strikes me are more general
> than useful, and the name will forever present a mystery to most
> newcomers.
>
> Perhaps join() ought to be a built-in function?
come to think of it, the last design I came up with (inspired
by a mail from you which I cannot find right now), was this:
def join(sequence, sep=None):
# built-in
if not sequence:
return ""
sequence[0].__join__(sequence, sep)
string.join => join
and __join__ methods in the unicode and string classes.
Guido?
</F>
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