Guido: > Boy, are you stirring up a can of worms that we've been through many > times before! Nothing you say hasn't been said at least a hundred > times before, on this list as well as on c.l.py. And I'll wager you'll continue to hear them said at regular intervals for a long time to come, because you've done something which a lot of people feel very strongly was a mistake, and they have some very rational arguments as to why it was a mistake, whereas you don't seem to have any arguments to the contrary which those people are likely to find convincing. > There really seem to be only two possibilities that don't have this > problem: (1) make it a built-in, or (2) make it a method on strings. False dichotomy. Some other possibilities: (3) Use an operator. (4) Leave it in the string module! Really, I don't see what would be so bad about that. You still need somewhere to put all the string-related constants, so why not keep the string module for those, plus the few functions that don't have any other obvious place? > If " ".join(L) bugs you, try this: > > space = " " # This could be a global > . > . > . > s = space.join(L) Surely you must realise that this completely fails to address Mr. Petrilli's concern? Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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