"Raymond Hettinger" <raymond.hettinger at verizon.net> wrote in message news:001501c5ac03$4679e480$d206a044 at oemcomputer... > [M.-A. Lemburg] >> Also, as I understand Terry's request, .find() should be removed >> in favor of just leaving .index() (which is the identical method >> without the funny -1 return code logic). My proposal is to use the 3.0 opportunity to improve the language in this particular area. I considered and ranked five alternatives more or less as follows. 1. Keep .index and delete .find. 2. Keep .index and repair .find to return None instead of -1. 3.5 Delete .index and repair .find. 3.5 Keep .index and .find as is. 5. Delete .index and keep .find as is. > It is new and separate, but it is also related. I see it as a 6th option: keep.index, delete .find, and replace with .partition. I rank this at least second and maybe first. It is separable in that the replacement can be done now, while the deletion has to wait. > The core of Terry's request is the assertion that str.find() > is bug-prone and should not be used. That and the redundancy, both of which bothered me a bit since I first learned the string module functions. Terry J. Reedy
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