Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.084 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.83; '*S*': 0.00; 'string': 0.09; 'subject:string': 0.09; 'fine.': 0.16; 'roy': 0.16; 'subject:python': 0.16; ':-)': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.30; 'something': 0.35; 'doing': 0.36; 'performance': 0.37; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; "you're": 0.61; 'you.': 0.62; 'received:217': 0.63; 'places': 0.64; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.65; 'smith': 0.68 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter3-d.gandi.net X-Originating-IP: 41.188.46.121 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:19:54 +0300 From: Mihamina Rakotomandimby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: python string, best way to concat References: <55bab2a0-e0bc-4398-90b4-c9937498f5d8@googlegroups.com> <63bdccb4-9e34-4e40-b07d-14342e21815f@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 6 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1409228332 news.xs4all.nl 2848 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:35369 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:77202 On 08/28/2014 03:08 PM, Roy Smith wrote: > For places where performance doesn't matter, string addition is just > fine. The computer works for you. If you're working for the computer, > you're doing something wrong. I like this :-)