Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Looking just at the proposed functionality (taking a prefix) and > ignoring the requested complexification :), the usual name for the > text produced by this process is a > "lead" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section), > although formally a lead is actually written to be used as such, as opposed > to just taking a prefix, so that word really has the same problem as > 'summarize'.
Good point. > The placeholder argument could alternatively be named 'ellipsis', but > placeholder is certainly fine. I would certainly like ellipsis if it didn't already mean something else in Python. > shorten would probably be better if you are going with the expanded > version, but I like truncate. It is probably significant that that is > what the title of the issue calls it :) I'm a bit negative towards truncate(), mostly because I've worked on the I/O stack and truncate means something much less careful there (e.g. StringIO.truncate()). But really, I'm fine with either shorten() or truncate(). I agree summarize() may try to look a bit too smart. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18585> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com