On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:20, Antoine Pitrou
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:13:26 +0200 Serhiy Storchaka
wrote: 24.01.14 19:36, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:30:00 +0200 Serhiy Storchaka
wrote: 24.01.14 18:56, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:47:14 -0800 (PST) Ram Rachum
wrote: I propose implementing str.rreplace. (It'll be to str.replace what str.rsplit is to str.split.)
I suppose it only differs when the count parameter is supplied?
I don't think it can hurt, except for the funny looks of its name. In any case, if str.rreplace is added then so should bytes.rreplace and bytearray.rreplace.
bytearray.rremove, tuple.rindex, list.rindex, list.rremove.
Not sure what those have to do with rreplace(). Overgeneralization doesn't help.
If open a door for rreplace, it would be not easy to close it for rindex and rremove.
Perhaps you underestimate our collective door closing skills ;)
While we're speculatively overgeneralizing, couldn't all of the index/find/remove/replace/etc. methods take a negative n to count from the end, making r variants unnecessary?