> join() is special indeed, but what about the semantics we talked > about last year (?)... > > join(seq, sep) := seq[0] + sep + seq[1] + sep + ... + seq[n] > > This should fit all uses of join() (accept maybe os.path.join). This is much more general than the current definition -- e.g. join(range(5), 0) would yield 10. I'm not too keen on widening the definition this much. > How about naming the beast concat() with sep defaulting to '' to > avoid the problems with os.path.join() ?! Hm... if we can stick to the string semantics this would be okay. But we'd lose the symmetry of split/join. Note that string.join has a default separator of ' ' to roughly match the default behavoir of split. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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