On 5/31/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Fredrik Lundh] > > would "abc".find("", 100) == 3 be okay? or should we switch to treating the > > optional start and end positions as "return value boundaries" (used to > > filter the > > result) rather than "slice directives" (used to process the source string > > before > > the operation)? it's all trivial to implement, and has no performance > > implications, > > but I'm not sure what the consensus really is... > > FWIW, I like what you eventually did: > > >>> "ab".find("") > 0 > >>> "ab".find("", 1) > 1 > >>> "ab".find("", 2) > 2 > >>> "ab".find("", 3) > -1 > >>> "ab".rfind("") > 2 > >>> "ab".rfind("", 1) > 2 > >>> "ab".rfind("", 2) > 2 > >>> "ab".rfind("", 3) > -1 > > I don't know that a compelling argument can be made for such a > seemingly senseless operation, but the behavior above is at least > consistent with the rule that a string of length n has exactly n+1 > empty substrings, at 0:0, 1:1, ..., and n:n.
Yes. Bravo! -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com