Hi,
FTR, I was not implying the $PIECE() was an answer at all, but only
suggesting it as an alternative name to .partition(). .piece() can be
both a verb and a noun as can .partition(), thus overcoming Nick's
objection to a "noun"ish thing doing the work of a "verb"ish thing.
Also, IIRC, I did say it would need to be "Pythonified". I pointed to the
official definition of $PIECE() merely to show that it was more than a
.split() as it has (sort of) some of the notion of a slice.
Phillip, I think, as I presented the $PIECE() thing, you were totally
justified to recoil in horror. That said, it would be nice if there were
a way to "save" the result of the .partition() result in a way that would
not require duplicating the .partition() call (as has been suggested)
making things like:
... s.partition(":").head, s.partition(":").tail
unnecessary. One could get accustomed to the
_,_,tail = s.partition(...)
style I suppose, but it seems a bit "different", IMO. Also, it seems
that the interference with i18n diminishes the appeal of that style.
Cheers,
--ldl
On 8/30/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> No, just to point out that you can make up whatever semantics you want, but
> the semantics you show above are *not* the same as what are shown at the
> page the person who posted about $PIECE cited, and on whose content I based
> my reply:
>
> http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/function/piece.htm
>
> If you were following those semantics, then the code you presented above is
> buggy, as host.piece(':',1,2) would return the original string!
>
> Of course, since I know nothing of MUMPS besides what's on that page, it's
> entirely possible I've misinterpreted that page in some hideously subtle
> way -- as I pointed out in my original post regarding $PIECE. I like to
> remind myself and others of the possibility that I *could* be wrong, even
> when I'm *certain* I'm right, because it helps keep me from appearing any
> more arrogant than I already do, and it also helps to keep me from looking
> too stupid in those cases where I turn out to be wrong. Perhaps you might
> find that approach useful as well.
>
> In any case, to avoid confusion, you should probably specify the semantics
> of your piece() proposal in Python terms, so that those of us who don't
> know MUMPS have some possibility of grasping the inner mysteries of your
> proposal.
>
--
LD Landis - N0YRQ - from the St Paul side of Minneapolis
_______________________________________________
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
