RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 30 10:17:10 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055807.html

On 30/08/05, JustFillBug <mozbugbox at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 2005-08-30, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 11:26, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >> > My major issue is with the names - partition() doesn't sound right to
> >> > me.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I am VERY happy with the name partition().
> >
> > I'm +1 on the functionality, and +1 on the name partition(). The only other
> > name that comes to mind is 'separate()', but
> > a) I always spell it 'seperate' (and I don't need another lamdba <wink>)
> > b) It's too similar in name to 'split()'
> >
>
> trisplit()

split3() ?

I'm +1 on the name "partition" but I think this is shorter,
communicates the similarity to split and the fact that it always
returns exactly three parts.

  Oren

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055807.html below:

[Python-Dev] partition() (was: Remove str.find in 3.0?)