[Greg Ewing] >I thought Guido was against having "in" do anything >other than membership tests, but his last message sounded >like he was changing his mind. If "thon" in "python" then why not [1,2] in [0,1,2,3] (it's a purely rhetorical question) in general I don't think it is a good idea to have "in" be a membership vs subset/subseq operator depending on non ambiguity, convenience or simply implementer taste, because truly there are data types (ex. sets) that would need both and disambiguated. Either python grows a new subset/subseq operator but probably this is overkill (keyword issue, new __magic__ method, not meaningful, con venient for a lot of types) or strings (etc) should simply grow a new method with an appropriate name. "py"-in-"python"-is-dark-side-sexy-ly y'rs - Samuele Pedroni.
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