On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:55:36 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 13/02/2013 16:34, Rick Johnson wrote: >> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:10:14 AM UTC-6, jmfauth wrote: >>> >>>>>> d = {ord('a'): 'A', ord('b'): '2', ord('c'): 'C'} >>>>>> 'abcdefgabc'.translate(d) >>> 'A2CdefgA2C' >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> def jmTranslate(s, table): >>> ... table = {ord(k):table[k] for k in table} >>> ... return s.translate(table) >>> ... >>>>>> d = {'a': 'A', 'b': '2', 'c': 'C'} >>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d) >>> 'A2CdefgA2C' >>>>>> d = {'a': None, 'b': None, 'c': None} >>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d) >>> 'defg' >>>>>> d = {'a': '€€€€€', 'b': '€€€€', 'c': '€€€€'} >>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d) >>> '€€€€€€€€€€€€€defg€€€€€€€€€€€€€' >> >> [quip] I just really prefer a cryptic solution to a problem when a >> simplistic and consistent approach would suffice.[/quip] TO HELL WITH >> THE ZEN! >> >> "Beautiful is better than ugly." >> BROKEN! >> >> "Explicit is better than implicit." >> BROKEN! >> >> "Simple is better than complex." >> BROKEN! >> >> "Sparse is better than dense." >> BROKEN! >> >> "Readability counts." >> BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!!!! >> >> "Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules." >> BROKEN! >> >> "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess." >> BROKEN! >> >> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." >> BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN! >> >> "If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea." >> BROKEN! >> >> "If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea." >> REINFORCED BY BAD EXAMPLE >> >> > jmf and rr in combination reminded me of this. I hope you all get my > drift :) > > http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Spencer.Rugaber/poems/love.txt
10-4, good buddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list