[Python-Dev] Re: Missing arguments in RE functions (original) (raw)

Michael Chermside mcherm at mcherm.com
Fri Sep 10 19:21:25 CEST 2004

Fredrik Lundh writes:

the "I didn't prepare properly, didn't know what I was talking about, and didn't know what do answer when my students asked me a legitimate question" argument isn't a good reason to change the language.

if you're doing Python training, make sure you know your Python. I do, and I very seldom have problems explaining how things work.

Fredrik, a less hostile response would be appropriate here. No one knows every detail of every API of any reasonably sized library (like Python's). Students ask questions about the darndest things. If you have never been stumped by a student's question then you're not teaching the right people.

My opinion on the underlying question is this: We have two ways of doing things: using compiled REs, and using the RE functions. Our goal is to make Python's API be so simple and easy to understand that people DON'T have to memorize every little detail -- it should be "obvious". That is, in my opinion, the strongest reason in favor of minimal APIs.

Right now, there are some things you can do with the RE functions and a DIFFERENT set of things you can do with the compiled REs. That's TWO sets of functionality to learn. If Noam's patch can make the feature set of the RE functions the SAME as the feature set of the compiled REs, then there's only ONE set of features to memorize. On the whole, there are MORE indiviual "pieces" to the API but because of orthogonality the API as a whole is simpler. Therefore in this case I favor using Noam's patch.

My next-favorite alternative would actually be to remove the RE functions so there's "only one way to do it". But the functions are conceptually simpler (as Noam showed, the docs describe the functions then say the compiled REs work "just the same"), and they've been in place for years... removing them is not an option.

-- Michael Chermside

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list