> This has probably been discussed before, but why doesn't the list object > support a find method? Seems like if a non-exception-raising index method > is good enough for strings, it should be good enough for lists as well. I > realize I can use "l.count(x) and l.index(x)" to avoid the possible > ValueError. (Or maybe it's strings that shouldn't have find, but can't be > deleted not for code breakage reasons?) > > I'm mostly just curious. Am I missing something? List searching is much less common, and the string functions (both index() and find()) have different semantics: they look for substrings, while list.index() only searches for a particular item. With lists, if you need this, you're probbly using the wrong datastructure. With strings, substring matching is a standard pattern. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4