In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >func(*arg) instead of apply() is a step back -- it hides the fact >that functions are objects, and it confuses the heck out of both >C/C++ programmers and Python programmers that understand the "def >func(*arg)" form, because it looks like something it isn't (there's a >false symmetry between the call-form and the def-form).
For me, it works the other way around, but I can see how you perceive it that way. >and I still do enough 1.5.2-programming to use "x = x + y"; when I find >myself in a situation where my code would benefit a lot from being able >to write "x += y" instead, I go back and fix the design. Okay, it wasn't clear in your original post that you're still stuck with 1.5.2. That makes a huge difference in the convenience of newer features. >string methods are nice, but nothing groundbreaking, and their niceness >is almost entirely offset by the horrid "".join(seq) construct that >keeps popping up when people take the "the string module is deprecated" >yada yada too seriously. and what do the python-devers do? they add a >"sum" built-in, but no "join"? hello? While I'm in complete agreement about the "".join() construct on the basis of looks, I have come to appreciate the fact that I *never* mess up the order of arguments any more. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
