On 25 January 2014 20:15, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 25 January 2014 at 09:18:24 UTC, Manu wrote:

On 24 January 2014 21:49, Regan Heath <regan@netmail.co.nz> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

I would expect "contains" to take a element and check if it exists in the
range.

Except in the case of string, where we also want an overload taking more
than a single element aka a substring.

A great example of when the string function should not be conflated with
the general function.

You always want the overload.

If this works:

contains("hello", "el");

then this should work:

contains([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [2, 3]);

Special cases are pure evil. There's nothing special about strings in this case.

Does that work in all cases of strings wrt utf encodings? String normalisation? What about when char and wchar strings are compared? (should that should be handled transparently?)

Strings are special, they're almost always special, and rarely conflate with generalisations well.

Strings almost always exposes special cases that aren't useful or relevant for any other context.