Feb. 10, 2009
8:43 p.m.
On Mar, Feb 10, 2009 06:24 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Steve Holden <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.
Interesting. So at least for "is" and "in" operators it is possible to play with the "not" operator. Thanks Cesare