Hi, [Guido] > I do think that keeping the string module around without all the > functions it historically contained would be a mistake, confusing > folks. This error is pretty clear: > > >>> import string > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? > ImportError: No module named string > >>> > > But this one is much more mystifying: > > >>> import string > >>> print string.join(["a", "b"], ".") > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? > AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'join' > >>> I am trying to understand what's the bottom line of this thread. It looks like people are suggesting that the venerable string module should vanish + provide its functions as object attributes. Well, I have to say that I actually like the fact that I can be procedural with strings and not object-oriented. Having all str functions as object attributes is too much OO for my mind with regard to this basic type. And too much OOrientation isn't always simple to grasp (despite that we can have anything as an object attribute now and regardless some nice pipe-like serialized string constructs achieved with attributes). Put it another way, it's good to have all string functions being attributes to a single well-known object, that object being the 'string' module, instead of spreading it all over... So add the attributes if you wish so (I respect OO minds), but don't zap the module (i.e. please respect mine ;-). Cheers, Vladimir
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