On Tue, Aug 30, 2005, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote: > > Looks like I'm getting seriously outvoted here ... Still, as I said I > don't think the name is overly important until the idea has been > accepted anyway. How long did we go with people in favour of "resource > manager" until "context manager" came up? In that case, though, it was more, "Well, I'm not that happy with 'context manager', but there doesn't seem to be anything better." This time, it's closer to, "That's a good name for the concept, yup." As you say, if someone comes up with a clearly better name, it likely will win; however, partition has been blessed by enough people that it's not worth putting much effort into finding anything better. > Of course, if I (or someone else) can't come up with an obviously > better name, partition() will win by default. I don't think it's a > *bad* name - just don't think it's a particularly *obvious* name. It's at least as obvious as translate(). <shrug> -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The way to build large Python applications is to componentize and loosely-couple the hell out of everything.
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