> Are you implying that we should deprecate the `in` operator for strings
No, we should definitely keep the `in` operator. We can revisit the best wording for the error/warning message later, my point is just that it should be more considerate to beginners than "TypeError: 'str' object is not iterable". > Strings *are* collections: Technically, a [collection]( https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.abc.html#collections.abc.Collection) is an iterable sized container, so if strings aren't iterable, they aren't collections. > Sometimes we treat strings as if they were pseudo-atomic. And > sometimes we treat tuples as pseudo-atomic records too. Should tuples no > longer be iterable? I don't think so. We treat strings as pseudo-atomic FAR more than we treat tuples as such. If tuples weren't iterable then tuple unpacking wouldn't work and all hell would break loose. I don't think this comparison works.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VT6C6ANUTZ7XR7EL5JAVERZ2QBCKIH7X/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
