On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> This seems to be my week to ask simple, stupid questions.
>
> Is there any good semantic or philosophical reason that these aren't legal?
Yes.
> >>> "ab" in "cabcd"
> 1
> >>> "xy" in "cabcd"
> 0
> >>> (1, 2) in (0, 1, 2, 3)
> 1
> >>> (9, 8) in (0, 1, 2, 3)
> 0
The current meaning of "in" is:
Given a sequence b, a is "in" b if a is an element of b.
Your "subsequence" interpretation would conflict with this meaning.
Here's current behaviour:
>>> "ab" in ("ab", "cd")
1
>>> "ab" in ("a", "b", "c", "d")
0
>>> (1, 2) in ((0, 1), (1, 2), (2, 3))
1
>>> (1, 2) in (0, 1, 2, 3)
0
"in" cannot have both meanings.
-- ?!ng
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
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