kj wrote:
"There is real value in having a small language."Guido van Rossum, 2007.07.03 http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-July/008663.html So there.
small != minimal
BTW, that's just one example. I've seen similar sentiments expressed by Guido over and over and over: any new proposed enhancement to Python must be good enough in his mind to justify cluttering the language. That attitude counts as minimalism in my book. The best explanation I have found so far for re.match is that it is an unfortunate bit of legacy, something that would not be there if the design of Python did not have to be mindful of keeping old code chugging along...
It is possible that someone proposed removing re.match for 3.0, but I do not remember any such discussion. Some things were dropped when that contraint was (teporarily) dropped.
tjr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
