[Samuele Pedroni] > > [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) > Which I also asked. But Guido pointed out htat [1, 2] may well be a member of a list such as [0, [1, 2], [3, 4], 5]. > 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. > Well, it looks like you lose! > 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. > > Consistency apparently loses out to pragmatism in this case. regards ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/ Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
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