I come to praise .join, not to bury it...
Russell E. Owen
owen at astrono.junkwashington.emu
Thu Apr 12 13:08:38 EDT 2001
In article <rodB6.6847$4N4.1487790 at newsc.telia.net>,
"Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
>Jürgen A. Erhard wrote:
>> One of the best: Smalltalk does has `join' as a method of
>> *collections*, not strings! One *might* think that the designers of
>> Smalltalk were... well, not the most stupid people on the planet.
>
>if you can find Python's collection base class, we're happy
>to add a join method to it.
I am curious about that. What *would* be involved in creating such a
base class or collection class hierarchy? I can imagine several uses for
it (in addition to join), including:
- subclassing to make new kinds of collections; collection could do most
of the work
- type checking (is this an instance of the collection base class?)
- the % operator could work on any kind of collection; I occasionally
try to use a list instead of a tuple
-- Russell
More information about the Python-list
mailing list