> My only remark is that this opens the temptation for someone > to subclass say UserList and define "in" as subseq > because it is convenient for the application, for some > value of convenient. And write "seq1 in seq2". Yeah, once you allow overloading, you can't prevent abuse. I've heard of bad C++ programmers who write A+B meaning an assignment to A. > One can generalize saying that it is OK for sequences > that are not full-fledged containers and in particular > do not accept (per contract) subseqs as elements. In the context of a particular application it can be very useful and completely unambiguous. > All the subtle explanation shows that this is indeed a subtle > point. Yes! > Thanks again. You're welcome. And thanks for your question -- it made me see this issue in a different light (the correct one :-). > PS: is pure substring testing such a common idiom? > I have not found so many > matches for find\(.*\)\s*> in the std lib, > but maybe the re is not general enough or > the std lib is not typical in this respect. Or some > op error. The std lib is probably low on string processing ops compared to many real apps. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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