I come to praise .join, not to bury it...

[John W. Baxter]

In article <97rka002k9 at news1.newsguy.com>,
 "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:

> [Excellent exposition omitted.]

> So, since we want general polymorphism on the joiner
> object, but are quite content with polymorphism through
> the standard sequence interface on the sequence object,
> it is _just right_ that .join be a method on the joiner
> object (e.g., a string) and that it take the sequence of
> string to be joined as its argument.

OK, thanks.  I'm convinced.  For the first time.  (Which won't 
necessarily keep me from writing non-polymorphic things with the string 
module, but it might make me *try* to remember.)

> 
> I have not heard ANY _technical_ arguments opposed to
> this last time the discussion went around -- nothing but
> vague aesthetic, "it should be the other way", "I find it
> ugly" kind of complaints.  Unless and until further notice,
> then, I class these together with the complaints of people
> who dislike 0-based indexing, on similar vague bases -- as
> 0-based indexing _works_ better than 1-based, then, for
> me, it is a superior choice.

Which doesn't mean I have to *like* zero-based indexing...only that I 
have to use it.  But then, *all* of the looping that was available in 
the IBM 704 via the TXI, TXL, TXH family of instructions had fence-post 
problems*, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

  --John (* if you build a straight fence with 10 posts 6 feet apart, 
how long is the fence?)

-- 
John W. Baxter   Port Ludlow, WA USA  jwbnews at scandaroon.com