I see, I didn't think about all the documentations to update, and i should have as I've got the same problem in my project :). > I think the reason is that there isn't enough need for it. The > special case of s.rsplit(c, 1) can be coded so easily by using rfind() > that I don't see the need to add it. Our Swiss Army Knife string type > is beginning to be so loaded with features that I am reluctant to add > more. The cost of a new feature these days is measured in the number > of books that need to be updated, not the number of lines of code > needed to implement it. > > For your amusement only (! :-), I offer this implementation of > rsplit(), which works in Python 2.3: > > def rsplit(string, sep, count=-1): > L = [part[::-1] for part in string[::-1].split(sep[::-1], count)] > L.reverse() > return L Didn't thought about this one, tricky and amusing. -- Boris Boutillier - Boris.Boutillier@arteris.net
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