"str.contains(part)" or alternatives?
lists at gregfortune.com
Thu Sep 12 00:18:23 EDT 2002
>> I think the current proposal is to move to
>> if ll in s:
>> for this construct. Happy?
> I would like .contains more, but at least the proposal is _much_ better
> than "if s.find(part) != -1". :-)
> "if part in s" disturbs the pattern "if item in sequence" somewhat but
> that has already been weakened by "if key in dict" (that I like,
Why not simply use .count(part) > 0 ? I didn't catch the first part of the
conversation, but if I'm looking for a contains, I just do.
if(search_me.count(substr) > 0):
print 'not found'
More information about the Python-list