On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:47:24 -0700 (PDT), Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 12:46 pm, David C Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:22:55 -0700, Mensanator wrote: >> > On Oct 20, 1:51 pm, David C Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote: >> > I'm not saying either behaviour is wrong, it's just not obvious that the >> > one behaviour doesn't follow from the other and the documentation could >> > be >> > a little clearer on this matter. It might make a bit more sense to >> > actually >> > mention the slpit(sep) behavior that split() doesn't do. >> >> Have you _read_ the docs? They're quite clear on the difference >> between no sep (or sep=None) and sep=something: > >Even if the docs do describe the behavior adequately, he has a point >that the documents should emphasize the counterintutive split >personality of the method better. > >s.split() and s.split(sep) do different things, And they _state_ quite clearly that they do different things! I don't see what your complaint could possibly be. > and there is no string >sep that can make s.split(sep) behave like s.split(). That's not >unheard of but it does go against our typical expectations. It would >have been a better library design if s.split() and s.split(sep) were >different methods. _That_ may be so. But claiming that there's a problem with the docs here seems silly, since the docs say exactly what happens. >That they are the same method isn't the end of the world but the >documentation really ought to emphasize its dual nature. > > >Carl Banks David C. Ullrich "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." in sci.logic.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list