On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:18:23AM -0700, Alex Martelli wrote:
> On 4/27/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 10:08 -0700, Aahz wrote:
> >
> > > While I hate the way it looks, I never have gotten mixed up about the
> > > order of arguments since switching to ''.join(l).
> >
> > Which is why
> >
> > EMPTYSTRING = ''
> >
> > ...
> >
> > EMPTYSTRING.join(seq)
> >
> > looks much better. But hey, yeah, a join() builtin would be fine if it
> > took the string arg first, so that
> >
> > ''.join(seq) == join('', seq)
>
> I think I would prefer a signature of:
> join(seq, joiner='')
>
> Rationale: an emptystring joiner is the most frequent cases, but
> several others (space, newline, space-comma, ...) occur often enough
> to be worth allowing the joiner to be optionally specified.
Grepping through my own for joins that use a literal:
Join type Count
-------------------
','.join 83
''.join 61 # the default suggested above
str.join 35
' '.join 28
string.join 10
OTHER.join 45 # everything else with a literal ' AND '.join, etc
So I'd prefer if the seperator was explicit and up front where
I can see it instead of hiding at the end.
Also, if join() is builtin does that mean split() will be too?
-Jack
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
