Le dim. 22 mars 2020 à 01:45, Dennis Sweeney <sweeney.dennis650@gmail.com> a écrit :
For accepting multiple prefixes, I can't tell if there's a consensus about whether ``s = s.cutprefix("a", "b", "c")`` should be the same as
for prefix in ["a", "b", "c"]: s = s.cutprefix(prefix)
or
for prefix in ["a", "b", "c"]: if s.startwith(prefix): s = s.cutprefix(prefix) break
The latter seems to be harder for users to implement through other means, and it's the behavior that test_concurrent_futures.py has implemented now, so maybe that's what we want.
I expect that "FooBar".cutprefix(("Foo", "Bar")) returns "Bar". IMO it's consistent with "FooFoo".cutprefix("Foo") which only returns "Foo" and not "": https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0616/#remove-multiple-copies-of-a-prefix If you want to remove both prefixes, "FooBar".cutprefix("Foo").cutprefix("Bar") should be called to get "".
Also, it seems more elegant to me to accept variadic arguments, rather than a single tuple of arguments. Is it worth it to match the related-but-not-the-same API of "startswith" if it makes for uglier Python? My gut reaction is to prefer the varargs, but maybe someone has a different perspective.
I suggest to accept a tuple of strings: str.cutprefix(("prefix1", "prefix2")) To be consistent with startswith(): str.startswith(("prefix1", "prefix2")) cutprefix() and startswith() can be used together and so I would prefer to have the same API: prefixes = ("context: ", "ctx:") has_prefix = False if line.startswith(prefixes): line = line.cutprefix(prefixes) has_prefix = True A different API would look more surprising, no? Compare it to: prefixes = ("context: ", "ctx:") has_prefix = False if line.startswith(prefixes): line = line.cutprefix(*prefixes) # <== HERE has_prefix = True The difference is even more visible is you pass directly the prefixes: .cutprefix("context: ", "ctx:") vs .cutprefix(("context: ", "ctx:")) Victor -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.