Feb. 10, 2009
5:25 p.m.
Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com <mailto:steve@holdenweb.com>> wrote:
That's true, but the same *could* be said about the existing optimizations for objects that define their own __contains__.
No, because there isn't a __not_contains__, so you cannot define the inverse operation differently. "not a in b" and "a not in b" have exactly the same effects.
Ah, right, that guarantees semantic equivalence. Sorry. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/