>>>>> "JvR" == Just van Rossum <just@letterror.com> writes:
JvR> Recommending replacing all of these (not to mention all the
JvR> code "out there") with named constants seems plain silly.
Until there's a tool to do the migration, I don't (personally)
recommend wholesale migration. For new code I write though, I usually
do it the way I described (which is intuitive to me, but then so is
moving your fingers at a blinding speed up and down 5 long strips of
metal to cause low bowel-tickling rumbly noises).
JvR> So, making join() a builtin makes a whole lot of sense. Not
JvR> doing this because people sometimes use a local reference to
JvR> os.path.join seems awfully backward.
I agree. Have we agreed on the semantics and signature of builtin
join() though? Is it just string.join() stuck in builtins?
-Barry
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