"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim Jewett wrote: > > > On 8/27/06, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jim Jewett wrote: > > > >>> s[start:stop].find(prefix) > > > >> No matter what, I really think the obj[start:stop:step] > >> syntax needs to be consistent in its behaviour - either > >> returning a copy or a view - > > > > Does it still matter if we're looking only at immutable sequences, > > such as text? > > Actually, yes. I think it should be an explicit operation to say "I'm > taking a small view of this large string, which will result in the large > string existing until the view goes away". > > Currently the way to do that is to have a method. I'm simply proposing > that we reserve syntax that is currently not used to prevent it from > being used for another, less appropriate usage. It may never be used at > all.
In what I have been attempting to propose, no text methods would ever return a view. If one wants a view of text, one needs to manually construct the view via 'view = textview(st, start, stop)' or some equivalent spelling. After that, any operations on a view returns views (with a few exceptions, like steps != 1). The seemingly proposed textobj(start:stop) returning a view is not terribly intuitive, as () and [] aren't so terribly different from each other to not confuse someone initially. Never mind that it would be a syntax addition for the equivalent of a small subset of operations on currently existing objects. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
