Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The biggest ugliness though is ",".join(). No idea why this should
> be better than join(list, separator=" "). Besides, ",".join(u"x")
> yields an unicode object. This is confusing (but will probably go
> away with Python 3).
It is only ugly because you aren't used to seeing method calls on string
literals. Here are some arguably less-ugly alternatives:
print str.join(", ", sequence)
or:
comma_separated = ", ".join
will let you use:
print comma_separated(sequence)
or even just:
SEPARATOR = ", "
followed by:
SEPARATOR.join(sequence)
is no more ugly than any other method call.
It would make perfect sense for join to be a method on stringlike objects
if it simply returned an object of the same type as the object it is called
on. As you point out, where it breaks down is a str separator can return a
unicode result and that is confusing: if you want a unicode result perhaps
you should be required to use a unicode separator but that isn't going to
happen (at least not in Python 2.x).
What definitely wouldn't make sense would be to make join a method of the
list type (as it is in some other languages).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
