castironpi wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:25 pm, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Compare to an imaginary "set of ints" data type:
a= setofints( [ 0, 1, 2 ] )
Then, the semantics of
b= setofints( [ 0, 1 ] )
b in a
True
are consistent and predictable. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you defined a subclass setofints of set with members restricted to
being integers, so that [0,1] could not be a member, then you could
(sensibly, in my opinion) override __contains__ to make the above work.
On the other hand, 'b in a' as a synonym for 'b is a subset of a' is
already available for general sets as b.issubset(a). So I would not do
the work of subclassing just to abbreviate this call, but only if I
wanted the membership guard.
Also, the transition from 'int in setofints' to 'setofints in setofints'
is not as smooth as the transition from 'length-1 string in string' to
'length-n string in string' because of the need to test and switch on
whether the object tested is an int or setofints.
Tuples and lists do not have a subsequence find or test method.
However, if I wanted one (and I expect I will sometime), I would
probably write a general function for sequence in sequence, without
bothering with restricting sequence membership.
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
