why not "'in' in 'in'"?

[Raymond Hettinger]

"Grant Griffin" <not.this at seebelow.org> wrote in message
news:aeac0l013k at drn.newsguy.com...
> Yes, guilty as charged!  Here's an example of my poor taste.  Since "find"
is
> sort of a boolean concept ("I found/didn't find my tennis shoes"), and
since the
> "find" function really returns the index (position) of a substring, I
probably
> would have called it "position" or maybe just "pos" (in admiration for
BASIC).

Where did you find your tennis shoes?  When you set out to find your tennis
shoes did you want to know where they were or just whether they were
findable?  IMHO, it would be strange to find your shoes and then not know
where they are.


Raymond Hettinger