Michael Chermside wrote:
> Raymond writes:
>> That suggests that we need a variant of split() that has been
>> customized for typical find/index use cases. Perhaps introduce a
>> new pair of methods, partition() and rpartition()
>
> +1
>
> My only suggestion is that when you're about to make a truly
> inspired suggestion like this one, that you use a new subject
> header. It will make it easier for the Python-Dev summary
> authors and for the people who look back in 20 years to ask
> "That str.partition() function is really swiggy! It's everywhere
> now, but I wonder what language had it first and who came up with
> it?"
+1
This is very useful behaviour IMO.
Have the precise return values of partition() been defined?
Specifically, given:
'a'.split('b')
we could get back:
('a', '', '')
('a', None, None)
Similarly:
'ab'.split('b')
could be either:
('a', 'b', '')
('a', 'b', None)
IMO the most useful (and intuitive) behaviour is to return strings in
all cases.
My major issue is with the names - partition() doesn't sound right to
me. split() of course sounds best, but it has additional stuff we don't
necessarily want. However, I think we should aim to get the idea
accepted first, then work out the best name.
Tim Delaney
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
