I come to praise .join, not to bury it...
John W. Baxter
jwbnews at scandaroon.com
Sun Mar 4 20:12:26 CET 2001
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
More information about the Python-list