New submission from Dávid Nemeskey <nemesk...@gmail.com>: There is an unjustified asymmetry between `str` and `list`, as far as lookup goes. Both have an `index()` method that returns the first index of a value, or raises a `ValueError` if it doesn't exist. However, only `str` has the `find` method, which returns -1 if the value is not in the string.
I think it would make sense to add `find` to `list` as well. For starters, it would make the API between the two sequence types more consistent. More importantly (though it depends on the use-case), `find` is usually more convenient than `index`, as one doesn't have to worry about handling an exception. As a bonus, since `list` is mutable, it allows one to write code such as if (idx := lst.find(value)) == -1: lst.append(value) call_some_function(lst[idx]) , making the method even more useful as it is in `str`. ---------- messages: 402497 nosy: nemeskeyd priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Add a 'find' method (a'la str) to list _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45271> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com