"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4/10/07, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One might perversely allow extension to lists and tuples to allow > > [3, 4] in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] > > to succeed, but that's forcing the use case beyond normal limits.
I'd love to have that! There are at least one million use cases for finding a sequence in a sequence and implementing it yourself is non-trivial. Plus then both list and tuple's index methods would work *exactly* like string's. It would be easier to document and more useful. A big win. ======================= It would be ambiguous: [3,4] in [[1,2], [3,4], [5,6]] is True now. Strings are special in that s[i] can only be a (sub)string of length 1. 'b' in 'abc' is True. This makes looking for longer substrings easy. However, [2] in [1,2,3] is False. IE, list[i] is not normally a list. So looking for sublists is different from looking for items. Terry Jan Reedy
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
