Nick Coghlan wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I don't feel there is a need to avoid numbers entirely. In this case I think it's the better way to find the n'th seperator and since it's an optional value I feel it doesn't add a lot of complication. Anyway... It's just a suggestion.
Avoid overengineering this without genuine use cases. Raymond's review of the standard library shows that the basic version of str.partition provides definite readability benefits and also makes it easier to write correct code - enhancements can wait until we have some real experience with how people use the method.
Cheers, Nick.
The use cases for nth items 1 and -1 are the same ones for partition() and rpartition. It's only values greater or less than those that need use cases. (I'll try to find some.) True, a directional index enhancement could be added later, but not considering it now and then adding it later would mean rpartition() would become redundant and/or an argument against doing it later. As it's been stated fairly often, it's hard to remove something once it's put in. So it's prudent to consider a few alternative forms and rule them out, rather than try to change things later. Cheers, Ron