«

[resend, with Subject line corrected and formatting crud deleted]

Mensanator wrote:
> That's interesting. If string.splitfields(delim) was equivalent to
> str.split(sep), it would have been useful to add the phrase
> "str.split(sep) is equivalent to the old string.splitfields(delim)
> which no longer exists." to the docs. That way, a search on
> "splitfields" would direct the user to str.split(sep) rather than
> simply throw a dialog box saying "No topics found". No one ever
> considers making life easy for the user.
>

I'm not sure what Python documentation you're consulting. I have Python
2.6.3rc1 on Windows XP. I launched the ...\doc\python263c1.chm help
file, and searched for "splitfields". Here's what I got:

string.splitfields(/s/[, /sep/[, /maxsplit/]])
This function behaves identically to split(). (In
the past, split() was only used with one argument,
while splitfields() was only used with two
arguments.)


-John

On Oct 22, 4:35*pm, John Posner <jjpos...@optimum.net> wrote:
> [resend, with Subject line corrected and formatting crud deleted]
>
> Mensanator wrote:
> > That's interesting. If string.splitfields(delim) was equivalent to
> > str.split(sep), it would have been useful to add the phrase
> > "str.split(sep) is equivalent to the old string.splitfields(delim)
> > which no longer exists." to the docs. That way, a search on
> > "splitfields" would direct the user to str.split(sep) rather than
> > simply throw a dialog box saying "No topics found". No one ever
> > considers making life easy for the user.
>
> I'm not sure what Python documentation you're consulting. I have Python
> 2.6.3rc1 on Windows XP. I launched the ...\doc\python263c1.chm help
> file, and searched for "splitfields". Here's what I got:
>
> *string.splitfields(/s/[, /sep/[, /maxsplit/]])
> * *This function behaves identically to split(). (In
> * *the past, split() was only used with one argument,
> * *while splitfields() was only used with two
> * *arguments.)

I got "No Topics Found" in the 3.1 docs. Still, the possibility
exists that someone has an old Python source code that they want
to convert to 3.1. I for one, never had a copy of Python 1.3.

>
> -John

En Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:45:54 -0300, Mensanator <>
escribió:
> On Oct 22, 4:35 pm, John Posner <jjpos...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>> > That's interesting. If string.splitfields(delim) was equivalent to
>> > str.split(sep), it would have been useful to add the phrase
>> > "str.split(sep) is equivalent to the old string.splitfields(delim)
>> > which no longer exists." to the docs.
>> I'm not sure what Python documentation you're consulting.
>
> I got "No Topics Found" in the 3.1 docs. Still, the possibility
> exists that someone has an old Python source code that they want
> to convert to 3.1. I for one, never had a copy of Python 1.3.

Those relics from the past has been removed in Python 3.x (in both code
and documentation). Also, all notes like 'New in version 1.x' or 'New in
version 2.x' have been removed too.

--
Gabriel Genellina