On 11 Apr, 16:14, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you want a language that just adds whatever methods anyone thinks > of, along with whatever aliases for it any can think of, to every data > type, you know where to find Ruby.
Nobody is asking for Ruby, as far as I can see. I even submitted a quick patch to provide tuple.index (a method that has already been thought of), given the triviality of the solution, but you won't find me asking for a bundle of different convenience methods with all their aliases on every object, regardless of whether you can monkey-patch them after the fact or not. For example: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Array.html#M002235 There's a pretty big chasm between wanting to be able to apply existing functionality exactly to a type which for some reason never acquired it and embracing the method proliferation and other low- hanging fruit-picking seemingly popular in Ruby. In observing this, one can make objective decisions about things like this... http://wiki.python.org/moin/AbstractBaseClasses Note that, in that document, index and count are methods of MutableSequence. Quite why this should be from a conceptual perspective is baffling, but don't underestimate the legacy influence in such matters. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
