string.replace doesn't removes ":"

[Mark Lawrence]

On 13/02/2013 16:34, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:10:14 AM UTC-6, jmfauth wrote:
>>
>>>>> d = {ord('a'): 'A', ord('b'): '2', ord('c'): 'C'}
>>>>> 'abcdefgabc'.translate(d)
>> 'A2CdefgA2C'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> def jmTranslate(s, table):
>> ...     table = {ord(k):table[k] for k in table}
>> ...     return s.translate(table)
>> ...
>>>>> d = {'a': 'A', 'b': '2', 'c': 'C'}
>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d)
>> 'A2CdefgA2C'
>>>>> d = {'a': None, 'b': None, 'c': None}
>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d)
>> 'defg'
>>>>> d = {'a': '€€€€€', 'b': '€€€€', 'c': '€€€€'}
>>>>> jmTranslate('abcdefgabc', d)
>> '€€€€€€€€€€€€€defg€€€€€€€€€€€€€'
>
> [quip] I just really prefer a cryptic solution to a problem when a simplistic and consistent approach would suffice.[/quip] TO HELL WITH THE ZEN!
>
> "Beautiful is better than ugly."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "Explicit is better than implicit."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "Simple is better than complex."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "Sparse is better than dense."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "Readability counts."
>    BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!!!!
>
> "Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
>    BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!
>
> "If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea."
>    BROKEN!
>
> "If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea."
>    REINFORCED BY BAD EXAMPLE
>

jmf and rr in combination reminded me of this.  I hope you all get my 
drift :)

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Spencer.Rugaber/poems/love.txt

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence