a splitting headache

[David C. Ullrich]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:47:24 -0700 (PDT), Carl Banks
<pavlovevidence at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 21, 12:46 pm, David C Ullrich <dullr... at sprynet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:22:55 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
>> > On Oct 20, 1:51 pm, David C Ullrich <dullr... at sprynet.com> wrote:
>> > I'm not saying either behaviour is wrong, it's just not obvious that the
>> > one behaviour doesn't follow from the other and the documentation could
>> > be
>> > a little clearer on this matter. It might make a bit more sense to
>> > actually
>> > mention the slpit(sep) behavior that split() doesn't do.
>>
>> Have you _read_ the docs? They're quite clear on the difference
>> between no sep (or sep=None) and sep=something:
>
>Even if the docs do describe the behavior adequately, he has a point
>that the documents should emphasize the counterintutive split
>personality of the method better.
>
>s.split() and s.split(sep) do different things,

And they _state_ quite clearly that they do different things!
I don't see what your complaint could possibly be.

> and there is no string
>sep that can make s.split(sep) behave like s.split().  That's not
>unheard of but it does go against our typical expectations.  It would
>have been a better library design if s.split() and s.split(sep) were
>different methods.

_That_ may be so. But claiming that there's a problem with the
docs here seems silly, since the docs say exactly what happens.

>That they are the same method isn't the end of the world but the
>documentation really ought to emphasize its dual nature.
>
>
>Carl Banks

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. 
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)