[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.
[Greg Ewing]
> 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.
Then it's a wash: Guido doesn't find their arguments convincing either, and
ties favor the status quo even in the absence of BDFLness.
>> 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.
Oh, that's likely <wink>.
> (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?
Guido said he wants to deprecate the entire string module, so that Python
can eventually warn on the mere presence of "import string". That's what he
said when I earlier ranted in favor of keeping the string module around.
My guess is that making it a builtin is the only alternative that stands any
chance at this point.
>> 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?
Don't know about Guido, but I don't realize that, and we haven't heard back
from Charles. His objections were raised the first day " ".join was
suggested, space.join was suggested almost immediately after, and that
latter suggestion did seem to pacify at least several objectors. Don't know
whether it makes Charles happier, but since it *has* made others happier in
the past, it's not unreasonable to imagine that Charles might like it too.
if-we're-to-be-swayed-by-his-continued-outrage-afraid-it-will-
have-to-come-from-him-ly y'rs - tim
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