On Tuesday 05 September 2006 14:02, Jim Jewett wrote:
> Then shouldn't rpartition be S.rpartition(sep) -> (rest, sep, tail)
Whichever matches reality, sure. I've lost track of the rpartition() result
order. --sigh--
> Another possibility is data (for head/tail) and unparsed (for rest).
>
> S.partition(sep) -> (data, sep, unparsed)
> S.rpartition(sep) -> (unparsed, sep, data)
It's all data, so I think that's too contrived.
> I'm not sure which is worse --
> (1) distinguishing between tail and rest
> (2) using (overly generic) jargon like unparsed and data.
I don't see the distinction between tail and rest as problematic. But I've
not used lisp for a long time.
> Whatever the final decision, it would probably be best to add an
> example to the docstring. "a.b.c".rpartition(".") -> ("a.b", ".",
> "c")
Agreed.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com