On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 06:33, wfdc via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > > > But *humans* can be confused by "replace" having a totally different API in > > different contexts. > > I doubt that's the case here. > > The closest equivalent to tuple's .replace method would be namedtuple's > _.replace method, which also has a different API from string's .replace > method. > > > I could (I believe) write "count" as an (inefficient) 1-liner, but not > > "index". I suggest it's harder than you think. (Try it!) > > How much harder? Can you post your candidate? > > In any case, my point still stands. > > > "Not every 1-line function needs to be a built-in". > > Not every 1-line function needs to *not* be a built-in. > > > Well, you are 1 user. Have you evidence that there are (many) others? > > See the StackOverflow link and the 2 other participants in this thread who > attested to frequent use of this functionality. >
You still haven't shown why a namedtuple is wrong for your use-case. In fact, you haven't shown anything of your use-case, other than that you've written a one-liner and wish that it were a method. What is the larger context in which this is such an incredibly common operation? In fact, if it's really such a frequent need, maybe you and/or other participants can show more than one use-case. That would be helpful in understanding why tuples need this as a method. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/H7VCIVQD7EKM426G4PI6TU6JWLFP3POR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
