4 ms·

Sounds to me like join would work better as a function ;)

• axiak 16y ago
  Except that it only makes sense in the context of strings, so it makes perfect sense to make it a string method.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  • djacobs 16y ago
    It seems to me like join makes sense in any context where you have multiple elements that you want joined. With strings, you happen to have a separator. But you might also want to join several lists into one flattened list. (Edit: I know there are ways to do this. The point is that join could be unified around this concept.) Even if you disagree, the line between methods and functions in Python really isn't standardized.
    • koenigdavidmj 16y ago
      You can join several lists into a flattened list as well: reduce(operator.add, list_of_lists) You can not say sum(), sadly, because it forces a restriction that you only sum numbers.
      • dgouldin 16y ago
        It's not pretty, but you can do it: >>> sum([['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']], []) ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'] This makes use of the optional start argument and list add operator. However, Python's docs suggest using itertools.chain instead: http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#sum http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#sum >>> import itertools >>> [l for l in itertools.chain(*[['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']])] ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'] (Of course you lose the benefit of a generator by using a list comprehension, but this is just an example.)
        • jacobolus 16y ago
          Your second example is easier to just write as: >>> from itertools import chain >>> list_of_lists = [['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']] >>> list(chain(*list_of_lists)) ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'] That is, list(«foo») is clearer and more idiomatic than [x for x in «foo»].
        • scottbessler 16y ago
          I may be missing something, but why isn't skipping your list comprehension maintaining the benefit of using a generator? >>> from itertools import chain >>> chain(*[['a', 'b', 'c'], ['d', 'e', 'f']])
          • dgouldin 16y ago
            It is, but I don't get to show you the result of the chain that way. :)
• j_baker 16y ago
  See the design FAQ here: http://docs.python.org/faq/design.html#why-is-join-a-string-method-instead-of-a-list-or-tuple-method http://docs.python.org/faq/design.html#why-is-join-a-string-... Admittedly, the join syntax is somewhat counter-intuitive and arguably ugly, but it does the job without defining new built-in functions or adding extra syntax. If you really can't stand the syntax, you can always do this: # old style way of joining strings import string string.join([1,2,3], ' ') or: str.join(' ', [1,2,3]) Of course method #1 requires importing an extra module (which can be a bit of a pain) and method #2 requires knowing more about python's implementation of str (as you argued about using str.capitalize), but they work. Generally though, the syntax isn't that bad, but you have alternatives if you want them.
  • vithlani 16y ago
    $ipython In [1]: x = [1,2,3] In [2]: y = [4,5,6] In [3]: x + y Out[3]: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Why use 6 [join()] characters when you can use 1 :)
    • djacobs 16y ago
      Polymorphism.