a splitting headache
David C. Ullrich
dullrich at sprynet.com
Thu Oct 22 14:32:03 CEST 2009
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
_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.
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."
More information about the Python-list