Hi Fredrik (and other too). First of all, thanks for taking your time to help me.
On 10/15/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leandro Lameiro wrote: > > > What's wrong in having a function like the one I said, that would > > split files for you, feed md5.update and, when it is over, return the > > digest? > > Calculating the digest sum for a file on disk, without doing anything else > with that file, is a very small subset of everything you may want to use > digests for. Forcing every digest module to add code to cater for just > one of many use cases is most likely a waste of time. > Seems that we are disagreeing about frequency of use of file hashes compared to frequency of uses of all kind of digest. I don't have a way to support my point of view, as it was just a personal impression. Maybe I've got a distorted impression about the importance of this. As I'm not an experienced programmer, I'd probably trust more in your impressions than mine. :) > > "Although practicality beats purity." > > "Readability counts." > > "Beautiful is better than ugly." > > > > Have I got the wrong "Pythonic" definition? > > You're confusing the kitchensink approach with the modular approach. > Bloated API:s are not practical, readable, nor beautiful. Small flexible > components that can be easily combined are. Well, right. But for a very common thing (maybe not this one), is it OK to add some functionality to the Standard Library? I mean, if we all agreed that it is a common thing, a patch for this would probably be accepted, or even if it was an agreed common thing, it would still be a bad idea because it would bloat the API? Thanks and Regards Leandro Lameiro > > </F> > > > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
