> >> >>> b in b > >> False > > > That's actually interesting. > > Just for the avoidance of doubt, I didn't write the 'b in b' line: > castironpi is replying to himself without attribution. > > P.S. I still don't see the relevance of any of castironpi's followup to my > post, but since none it made any sense to me I guess it doesn't matter.
Well, it does show thought and it's an interesting anomaly. It's related to the OP too (no less so than the one before it than any other to the one before it): 'Why?' is pretty open-ended. D'Aprano pointed out an ambiguity in the 'in' operator, which sparked an idea that contributes to some other threads. I thought Booth and Bossy, "homogeneous ... add+remove" pretty well summed it up. That's my mistake for showing excitement to one thread that was actually mostly prepared by another. I'm in A.I. if that helps any. I am puzzled by the failure on 'a in a' for a=[a]. >>> a== [a] also fails. Can we assume/surmise/deduce/infer it's intentional? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
