"str.contains(part)" or alternatives?
bokr at oz.net
Tue Sep 17 00:10:26 CEST 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:18:23 -0700, Greg Fortune <lists at gregfortune.com> wrote:
>>> 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 'found'
> print 'not found'
Mostly it won't matter, but in cases like
search_me = 'a'*10000000
substr = 'a'
it will 'way suboptimal in comparison with find or index.
More information about the Python-list