On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 11:34:00PM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > "Depreciated" means that you should not use it in new code -- > perhaps someday string.py will disappear, even though I doubt > that. The common term for that is 'deprecated', not 'depreciated'. Really :) There once was someone who posted a patch to linux-kernel to fix all those bloody typos everyone made. Almost all instances of 'depreciated' where spelled 'deprecated' ! <wink> Deprecate: 1.To express disapproval of; deplore. 2.To belittle; depreciate. Deprecate \Dep"re*cate\: To pray against, as an evil; to seek to avert by prayer; to desire the removal of; to seek deliverance from; to express deep regret for; to disapprove of strongly. The difference is minor, but there really is one. Come on Eric, show us the hackers dictionary on this ;) > > Besides, 'string.join' is a good compromise for the people who > > don't like " ".join() > Tim Peters will have to take the blame for this one ;-) I don't > find delimiter.join(sequence) awkward or funny -- using methods > for this has added value: it defines an interface which other > objects could support as well and thus makes your code polymorph. Indeed. And is there any harm in providing conveniency functions for those that prefer more obvious code ? There is hardly any doubt what string.join(s, sep) does. And some people prefer it that way. They don't care that it's really 'return sep.join(s)' behind their backs. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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