David Abrahams wrote:
> There's a reason to pursue the OP's expected result as opposed to just
> settling for list("funny"). If we pick a reasonable behavior for this
> case, it will save some number of people from having to write:
>
> if len(sep):
> divided = s.split(sep)
> else:
> divided = list(s)
>
> Which just makes the code harder-to-read.
>
> What's the point in making s.split('') an error? Assuming you document
> the behavior, the only people served by the error message are people who
> haven't bothered to read the docs. However, their code is broken anyway.
>
> Causing an error when there's the slightest ambiguity in what the code
> might mean in the absence of documentation doesn't serve anyone. I think
> the introduction of the MRO is in part motivated by this philosophy, and
> it's a good idea, when there's a sensible non-error behavior, to
> implement it.
I'll keep my fingers crossed - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com/
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