[Python-Dev] A wart which should have been repaired in 3.0? (original) (raw)
skip at pobox.com skip at pobox.com
Sat Dec 27 17:57:40 CET 2008
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] A wart which should have been repaired in 3.0?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] A wart which should have been repaired in 3.0?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>> You could I suppose though that would just be adding another hack on
>> top of existing questionable behavior.
Antoine> Agreed. We should fix the original function so that it has the
Antoine> obvious, intented effect. Leaving the buggy function in place
Antoine> and adding another function with the proper behaviour sounds
Antoine> ridiculous.If we add commonpath or commonpathprefix or pathprefix, or whatever, then find someplace to move the existing commonprefix function (maybe to the string module or as a class method of string objects?) then could we make a 2to3 fixer for this?
Skip
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] A wart which should have been repaired in 3.0?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] A wart which should have been repaired in 3.0?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]