Christoph Zwerschke wrote: > Sometimes I find myself stumbling over Python issues which have to do > with what I perceive as a lack of orthogonality. > > For instance, I just wanted to use the index() method on a tuple which > does not work. It only works on lists and strings, for no obvious > reason. Why not on all sequence types? > > Or, another example, the index() method has start and end parameters for > lists and strings. The count() method also has start and end parameters > for strings. But it has no such parameters for lists. Why? > > However when I ask such things I noticed I get answers like: "Is there a > use case?" "You can do it some other way so it is not worth bothering." > > Let me ask back: Do I really need to bother and justify it with a use > case in a case where the language can be easily made more consistent or > orthogonal without breaking anything?
Yes. If it's not going to be used, then there's not much point. Practicality beats purity, and all that. However, I will note that if you were to present us with a working patch with documentation and unittests, then you'll probably get responses along the lines of "Thank you!", instead. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
