Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>:
> 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.
You're right. But since a string can't be an element of a string, the
case I'm really interested in would still work.
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of arms."
--Aristotle
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