From: "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> > > > These "use cases" > > > don't convince me that there's a legitimate use case for > > > string.letters etc. that the methods don't cover. > > > > This is funny. In the C++ community there's a nearly unanimous > > consensus that way too much of the functionality of the standard > > strings is expressed as member functions. > > Interesting. Python used to have the same attitude, hence the string > module -- but the existence of multiple string types made methods more > attractive. > > What's the alternative proposed for C++? Free functions at namespace scope. The analogy would be module-level functions in Python. C++ also has multiple string types, but the availability of overloading makes this approach practical (is it time for Python multimethods yet?) If I were to make arguments against string member functions in Python I'd be talking about the degree of coupling between algorithms and data structures, how it interferes with genericity, and the difficulty that users will have in making "string-like" types... but-i-would-never-make-such-silly-arguments-ly y'rs, dave
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