"TP" == Tim Peters tim.one@home.com writes:
TP> It's "correct". I've been using Python longer than Guido TP> <wink>, and I'm amazed this is the first time I got bit by TP> this! Here's a hint:
Oh, that is twisted! :)
Let's throw in some parentheses just to confuse people even more:
'a' in 'a' == 'a'
1
('a' in 'a') == 'a'
0
'a' in ('a' == 'a')
Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? TypeError: 'in' or 'not in' needs sequence right argument
'a' in 'a' == 1
0
('a' in 'a') == 1
1
'a' in ('a' == 1)
Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? TypeError: 'in' or 'not in' needs sequence right argument
"PP" == Paul Prescod paulp@ActiveState.com writes:
PP> It looks like dubious hypergeneralization to me! <0.7 wink> PP> Seriously, does this "feature" ever make sense to apply to the PP> in operator?
I don't know; I wonder if "normal" people think of `in' as a chainable comparison operator or not. You're not suggesting to change this are you?
gotta-leave-something-`in'-there-for-job-security-ly y'rs, -Barry