> I've used Python for 23+ years now. I've had occasion where I'd use this
> methods maybe in the low-tens of times.
> I'd call the purpose rare at best.
This comment is useless without a base rate. What's the base rate for
comparable methods that *are* part of the standard library, like index and
count?
> I'm not going to list other one-liners that I'd also not want, but are less
> rare. There are various, but none I'd advocate adding rather than writing
> when I need them.
Why not? If you're not willing explain or back up that comment in any capacity,
which should be very easy, what was the point of making it? It's just adding
noise to the discussion.
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, March 11th, 2022 at 2:45 PM, David Mertz, Ph.D.
<david.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 2:39 PM wfdc <w...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not every one line function needs to be a method on a built-in type.
>>
>> Not every one line function needs to *not* be a method on a built-in type.
>> See tuple's count method for an example.
>
>> Again, if users find themselves re-implementing the same utility function
>> over and over again across different projects it's a good sign that such a
>> function should be part of the standard library.
>
> I've used Python for 23+ years now. I've had occasion where I'd use this
> methods maybe in the low-tens of times.
>
> I'd call the purpose rare at best.
>
> I'm not going to list other one-liners that I'd also not want, but are less
> rare. There are various, but none I'd advocate adding rather than writing
> when I need them.
_______________________________________________
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/GQR5F6H2UZSY3EYX6H35SDW7HEBZ4SYL/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
