Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #93771
| References | <mo0qk1$ora$1@ger.gmane.org> |
|---|---|
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
| Date | 2015-07-13 21:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.475.1436843580.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Roel Schroeven <roel@roelschroeven.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Quick question: why does str have both index() and find(), while list only > has index()? Is there a reason for that, or is it just an historical > accident? Historical accident, I think. If it were to be redone, I doubt that str.find would exist. The problem with it is that it returns -1 to indicate that the argument was not found, but -1 is a valid index into the string. This is a potential source of hard-to-find bugs. There was a long thread from 2005 on python-dev proposing to remove str.find in Python 3, but evidently it didn't make the cut: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055704.html
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 21:12 -0600
Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-14 13:23 +1000
Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 22:07 -0600
Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-14 14:58 +1000
Re: str.index() and str.find() versus only list.index() Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 15:13 +1000
csiph-web