On Friday 07 November 2003 06:05 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote: ... > Doesn't seem the right solution to me. If I were to design an API > for this without reference to the C convention, I'd probably use > keyword arguments. Interesting! Something like f = file('foo', writable=True) ... ? > I outright disagree with Brunning's idea for the struct module. More > verbose isn't always more readable or easier to remember. Heh, yes, I didn't even quote that one, being -1 on it myself:-) > > Another separate "attributes of types" issue raised by that same > > blog entry -- and that one does find me +1 -- is: isn't it time to > > make available as attributes of the str type object those few things > > that we still need to 'import string' for? E.g., the maketrans > > function (and maybe we could even give it a better name as long as > > we're making it a str.something?)... > > Yes, that would be good. Is there anything besides maketrans() in the > string module worth saving? (IMO letters and digits etc. are not -- > you can use s.isletter() etc. for that.) Hmmm, I do have loops such as 'for c in string.ascii_lowercase: ..."; e.g in a letter-counting example: for c in string.ascii_lowercase: print '%s: %8d" % (c, counts.get(c,0)) using counts.keys(), sorted, wouldn't be the same, as the 0's would not stand out. Admittedly coding 'abc...xyz' explicitly ain't gonna kill me, but... Alex
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