Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This would just be bloat
How would it be bloat? I'm describing a situation where the existing methods merely move, being implemented in a common ancestor rather than directly in the concrete sequence classes. > without any use cases being demonstrated. What is your crying need > for these methods? I don't think I claimed a crying need for one. Consistency, where not foolish, is desirable. I don't deny that there is work involved; my suggestion was in the context of talking about a common ancestor to 'bytes' and 'str', in order to refactor some of the common methods. > Your *real* generalisation of the string method would actually > require you to write > > ["foo", "bar", "spam", "baz", "quux", "wibble"].startswith(["foo"]) Yes, you're right. I realised that after sending, but didn't correct it. > Python didn't get to be the language it is today by adding > unnecessary hypergeneralisations on a whim. Show me how these > methods will improve the daily lives of programmers and I'll > champion them to the developers, but I don't think the world will be > beating a path to your door. Again, I'm discussing a still-nascent suggestion for a common sequence ancestor; there are no demands here. If there is to be generalisation, I'm merely pointing out that it could be at a higher level and be more useful. If nothing else, it would lend more coherence to the "str is a sequence" confusion if *all* sequences shared some str-derived methods. -- \ "I used to be a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
