Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I also like Josiah's idea of replacing find() with a search() method
> that returned an iterator of indices, so that you can do:
>
> for idx in string.search(sub):
> # Process the indices (if any)
Need to be careful with this - the original search proposal returned a
list, which could be tested for a boolean value - hence:
if not string.search(sub):
pass
but if an iterator were returned, I think we would want to be able to
perform the same test i.e. search would have to return an iterator that
had already performed the initial search, with __nonzero__ reflecting
the result of that search. I do think that returning an iterator is
better due to the fact that most uses of search() would only care about
the first returned index.
Tim Delaney
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
