4 ms·

int.bit_count, but str.removesuffix -- consistency has never been a strength of the Python standard library.

• kzrdude 4y ago
  similarly, I was just looking at functools.cached_property.. In the usual style of Python, it's a smart special case but not the same as the composition of @functools.cache and @property. Maybe it should have had a different name, for that reason, and the issue would be less prominent.
• ehsankia 4y ago
  What do you mean? That one's a verb and the other isn't? I think it's fine here. The latter returns a modified version of the string, whereas the former is more like a property of the int, like it's "length", although Python also doesn't have .length so I guess that's a bad example. Think of it like datetime.year vs datetime.replace
  • sp332 4y ago
    Well count could be a verb here. And one has an underscore while the other smashes two words together.
  • zodiac 4y ago
    I think the problem is that the first separates words by underscore and the second doesn’t
• rcfox 4y ago
  Python's style guide prefers words separated by underscores, but makes an exception to match the prevailing style of the module. `removesuffix` is consistent with the naming style of the rest of the `str` methods. `str` is such a fundamental class that it likely predates the current style guide. (All of the `int` named methods seem to be new to Python 3.)
• pansa2 4y ago
  `bit_count` is a terrible name for a function that returns the number of one-bits. Zero-bits are bits too!
  • danwills 4y ago
    Yeah, good point! I hadn't thought about that until you mentioned it but totally agree. I'd suggest something like `num_enabled_bits` or `enabled_bits_count` might have made things a bit clearer?
    • carapace 4y ago
      The operation's name is "popcount", there's an asm (i86?) instruction "POPCNT". https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=popcount&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=popcount&ia=web