[Steve Holden] >> (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]. which just reinfornces my point below, anyway I knew that before, even without Guido. You were not supposed to answer a rethorical question anyway <wink>. I have not read the entire unbearably long thread. >> 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! I'm not taking this personally, the problem one operator, two potential semantics remains. >Consistency apparently loses out to pragmatism in this case. What do you want "in" to do for you today? <wink><wink>. That's my last input on the matter. regards. PS: these days I read python-dev through the archives, it seems that this time I have added to redudance department myself, oh well...
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