On Oct 5, 2011 10:32 AM, "Ethan Furman" email@example.com wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:08 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm out of ideas here. But of all these, str.find is probably still the worst -- I've flagged bugs caused by it too many times to count.
Could a with-statement be used here somehow?
with finding(x, s) as i: ...
Or an iterator.
for i in finding(x, s): ...
How would the case of not found be handled in either of these proposals?
By never executing the body of the loop. It's still a thoroughly unnatural API for the 0 or 1 case, though.
-- Nick Coghlan (via Gmail on Android, so likely to be more terse than usual)