On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 7:00 AM, Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 15:57:58 +0100, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1 June 2018 at 15:36, Dan Strohl via Python-list >><python-list@python.org> wrote: >>> So... how does one go about suggesting changes to the built in types? > [snip] >> >> Why does this need to be a string method? Why can't it be a standalone >> function? > > Yes, please, let's content ourselves with a standalone function. > > Adding features to a language imposes costs in several ways, including > hindering newcomers and making code version-dependent. To full-time > Python developers, these costs appear small, because they are amortized > over a lot of Python activity; but they are encumbrances to the spread > and casual use of the language. It seems as if the destiny of every > language is to be adorned by its enthusiasts with so many arcane and > specialized optimizations -- every one an obvious improvement -- that > the world's interest drifts to something newer and cleaner.
How will a method be worse than a standalone function? Please explain this. A method is a lot easier to discover than a stdlib module function, which is in turn IMMENSELY more discoverable than anything on pypi. If you dislike adding features to a language on the basis that it makes the language harder to learn, remember that you instead force one of three even worse options: 1) Messy code because people unindent inside their source code, creating wonky indentation (which Python usually avoids) 2) Forcing readers to look up the third-party module you're using before they can understand your code 3) Forcing readers to look up your ad-hoc function before understanding your code. All of these make it harder to understand your code, specifically BECAUSE the language doesn't have the requisite feature. Well-written language features are good, not bad, for readability. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
