Hi, Georg Brandl <g.brandl <at> gmx.net> writes: > I'd argue that "find" is more primitive than "split" -- split is intuitively > implemented using find and slicing, but implementing find using split and > len is unintuitive. (Of course, "index" can be used instead of "find".) It surely is, but it would probably make sense to require both. Maybe have something like this: class SymbolSequence(Sequence) class String(SymbolSequence) String would be the base of str/unicode and CharacterSequence of str/bytes. A SymbolSequence is basically a sequence based on one type of symbols that implements slicing, getting symbols by index, count() and index(). A String is basically everything a str/unicode provides as method except of those which depend on informatio based on the symbol. For example upper() / isupper() etc would go. Additionally I guess it makes sense to get rid of encode() / decode() / format(). Regards, Armin
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