Russell Ballestrini added the comment: Tim,
You bring up some great points and insight I was missing. "To me the scores just aren't interesting beyond which words' scores exceed a cutoff, and the ordering of words based on their similarity scores - but `get_close_matches()` already captures those uses." For a *word*, and a corpus of *possibilities*, how does one choose a satisfactory *cutoff* without inspecting the output of the scoring algorithm? Personally, I don't want to inpect scores for inspection sake, I want to inspect scores so I can make an informed decision for the *n* and *cutoff* input arguments. Its true that after reading and digesting the source code for `get_close_matches()` I could (and did) implement a version that returns scores. My goal was to share this code and what better way then to "fix" the problem upstream. I understand the desire to keep the standard library lean and useful to reduce the amount of burden the code is to maintain. I will understand if we decide not to include these patches, I can always maintain a fork and share on pypi. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21344> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
