Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-04-10, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is a cost to every new language feature: it has to be >> implemented, documented, maintained, and above all learned by the >> users. Good design involves, in part, not adding to these burdens >> except where there is a benefit at least equal to the cost. > > So what is the easiest to learn: "All sequences have an index method" > or "Such and so sequences have an index method and others don't" > > Which of the above is the easiest to document?
The second would be if it were true. However it would mean you would have to add an index method to *all* sequences. FWIW, The current documentation says that 's.index' is a method defined on all *mutable* sequence types: almost as simple as your second wording but unfortunately misleading since strings also have index. > If someone states: "Show me your use case for using tuple.index and I > will show you how to avoid it." or words to that effect I think there > is little use trying. I genuinely cannot think of a use case. I didn't ask you to suggest one so I could show you how to avoid it, I asked you to suggest one so that we could take the discussion from the purely hypothetical to a more concrete discussion of whether it would be a worthwhile enhancement. Fair enough though. I'll assume you cannot think of a suitable use case either. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
