That would be strongly preferred to duplication across hundreds of use cases and thousands (millions?) of users. Not all of them are likely to come up with the most efficient implementation either.
-------- Original Message --------
On Jan 29, 2019, 18:44, David Mertz < mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:

stringify = lambda it: type(it)(map(str, it))

Done! Does that really need to be in the STDLIB?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 7:11 PM Alex Shafer via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org wrote:
1) I'm in favor of adding a stringify method to all collections

2) strings are special and worthy of a "special case" because strings tend to be human readable and are used in all kinds of user interface.



-------- Original Message --------
On Jan 29, 2019, 16:04, Steven D'Aprano < steve@pearwood.info> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:51:26PM +0100, Jamesie Pic wrote:

> What do you think of list.stringify(delim) ?

What's so special about lists? What do you think of:

tuple.stringify
deque.stringify
iterator.stringify
dict.keys.stringify

etc. And what's so special about strings that lists have to support a
stringify method and not every other type?

list.floatify
list.intify
list.tuplify
list.setify
list.iteratorify

Programming languages should be more about composable, re-usable general
purpose components more than special cases.

--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/