Carsten Haese wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 09:57 -0400, Steve Holden wrote: >> I hear the screams of "just add the index() method to tuples and have >> done with it" and, to an extent, can sympathize with them. But that way >> lies creeping featurism and the next thing you know we'll have a ternary >> operator in the language - oh wait, we do now! > > It would indeed be much easier to just give up. However, the resistance > to tuple.index is more than a generic resistance to feature creep. As I > have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread, any use case for tuple.index > will be inherently obfuscated. Code clarity is a major design goal of > Python, and adding tuple.index would be contrary to this goal. > > I'm just a user with no influence on the development of Python itself, > but in my humble opinion, the non-existence of tuple.index is more > pythonic than its existence would be. > I quite agree. I was not advocating it as a serious course of action, more admiring its noise-reduction potential. I'm no great fan of the if ... else expression either, come to that.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
