On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 13:12:26 -0700, Glenn Linderman <v+python at g.nevcal.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/2014 1:24 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Actually ... if I were a fan of the "".join() idiom, I'd seriously
> > propose 0.sum(numeric_iterable) as the RightThang{tm]. Then we could
> > deprecate "".join(string_iterable) in favor of "".sum(string_iterable)
> > (with the same efficient semantics).
> Actually, there is no need to wait for 0.sum() to propose "".sum... but
> it is only a spelling change, so no real benefit.
>
> Thinking about this more, maybe it should be a class function, so that
> it wouldn't require an instance:
>
> str.sum( iterable_containing_strings )
>
> [ or str.join( iterable_containing_strings ) ]
Sorry, I mean 'string.join' is how it used to be spelled. Making it a
class method is indeed slightly different.
--David
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