Hi Tim,
Well, I this is another idiom in itself, right?
Your checking if something is part of an iterable.
I'm checking truth before entering a conditional expression.
The latter is considered to be pythonic, right?
-jelle
On 10/31/07, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > if I check a string for for a substring, and this substring isn't found,
> > should't the .find method return 0 rather than -1?
> > this breaks the
> >
> > if check.find('something'):
> > do(somethingElse)
> >
> > idiom, which is a bit of a pity I think.
>
> That idiom is spelled:
>
> if 'something' in check:
> do(somethingElse)
>
> Unless you really do need to start at a particular offset where
> you use the additional parameters of find(), such as
> find('something', 3, 42). In that case, you can slice your target:
>
> if 'something' in check[3:42]:
> do(somethingElse)
>
> The above is untested, so check for fencepost errors, but the
> theory holds.
>
> So pretty much, I'd never consider using find() :)
>
> -tkc
>
>
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
