RetroSearch Browse

Fri Mar 9 19:18:23 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071785.html

Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
> At 08:57 AM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> In the case that triggered the discussion, the change implemented
>> was not an incompatible change, because the new implementation still
>> met the old specification (which, of course, was underspecified).
> 
> No, it wasn't, actually.  Read the doc strings, which state exactly what 
> the code does.

The doc strings were precise, yes. The documentation (Doc/lib) was
underspecified and allowed for both interpretations:

splitext(path)
Split the pathname path into a pair (root, ext) such that root + ext == 
path, and ext is empty or begins with a period and contains at most one 
period.

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071785.html below:

[Python-Dev] Policy Decisions, Judgment Calls, and Backwards Compatibility (was Re: splitext('.cshrc'))