Steven D'Aprano added the comment: Terry, I'm not sure if you've read this enhancement request correctly or not, because your reply when closing covers over a lot of detail which is not relevant to this feature request.
> Extending this idea to 'subsequence in sequence' or > sequence.index(subsequence) has been rejected. And so it should, as that is a major break with backwards compatibility, but that is not what this feature request is about. Including George's link, I count at least five questions on StackOverflow asking about this functionality: how to do subsequence tests in sequences apart from strings. That, and the interest in the recipes on ActiveState (here's another: http://code.activestate.com/recipes/117214/ ) indicate a reasonable level of interest in this feature. In Python today, there is no obvious, good, correct way to do this in the standard library, just a bunch of hacks and tricks which solve slightly different problems. Unless the very idea of subsequence matching has been rejected (which would surprise me greatly) I'm going to re-open this ticket. Any objections? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29511> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
