Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #46547

Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax?

Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Date 2013-05-30 15:01 -0700
References <CAGVx7UWXAFHSHq37Ep-Vk=cM2wYrEGHSUhNc8s43bCvj_VcVow@mail.gmail.com> <CAGGBd_oT=vqvPGZy+d1H=XHjdPCmYUxJMXAwii7WH845xrYybQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.2389.1369876474.3114.python-list@python.org> <851ce96a-0223-42b0-8d99-902294c71f58@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <mailman.2443.1369939057.3114.python-list@python.org>
Message-ID <32d47a30-8b74-41f4-a774-c878c60c7f73@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax?
From John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:36:54 AM UTC-7, Ian wrote:

> I don't object to changing the join method (one of the more 
> shoe-horned string methods) back into a function, but to my eyes
> you've got the arguments backward.  It should be:
>
> def join(sep, iterable): return sep.join(iterable)
> 
> Putting the separator first feels more natural to me because I expect
> the separator to usually be short as compared to the iterable, which
> is often a longer expression (as is the case in both of your
> subsequent usages).  Placing the separator first also preserves 
> consistency of interface with the str.join and bytes.join functions,
> as well as the older string.join function.

That may all be true, but the join() function shown will return a sequence starting with iterable[0] (followed by sep, and then iterable[1], then sep, etc.).  I find it more natural to see iterable as the first argument passed to join() for that reason.  Season to taste, I guess.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ma Xiaojun <damage3025@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 09:14 +0800
  Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 19:49 -0700
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 12:36 -0600
      Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 11:47 -0700
      Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-05-30 15:01 -0700
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 04:44 +1000
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 12:51 -0600
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-05-30 20:38 +0100
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:28 +1000
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 09:43 -0600
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-01 04:52 +1000

csiph-web