"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [M.-A. Lemburg] >> Also, as I understand Terry's request, .find() should be removed >> in favor of just leaving .index() (which is the identical method >> without the funny -1 return code logic).
My proposal is to use the 3.0 opportunity to improve the language in this particular area. I considered and ranked five alternatives more or less as follows. 1. Keep .index and delete .find. 2. Keep .index and repair .find to return None instead of -1. 3.5 Delete .index and repair .find. 3.5 Keep .index and .find as is. 5. Delete .index and keep .find as is. > It is new and separate, but it is also related. I see it as a 6th option: keep.index, delete .find, and replace with .partition. I rank this at least second and maybe first. It is separable in that the replacement can be done now, while the deletion has to wait. > The core of Terry's request is the assertion that str.find() > is bug-prone and should not be used. That and the redundancy, both of which bothered me a bit since I first learned the string module functions. Terry J. Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
