[Skip Montanaro] > >> How about a strtools module? > Fred> Not sure I like the increasing array of module name suffixes. > Fred> There's the classic "foolib", then we added "footools" and > Fred> "fooutils" (think "mimetools" and "distutils"). > Not to mention which, we have a perfectly good module name already: string. When the `string' module was more or less aimed at deprecation (at least in practice), a good while ago, this was good news to me, because this module was preventing me, as a programmer, to use `string' as a variable name. Currently in Python, `string' as a module is not ubiquitously needed as it once was in 1.5.2 times, and this is good news. Let it go and vanish if this is doable, but avoid making `string' any stronger. I would much prefer that library modules (past and future) should never be named after likely user variable names. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
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