Support Point in pg.Rect.__contains__

[Hato1]

Description

Currently, to detect when a Point intersects with a Rect, collidepoint seems to be the preferred method.

if rect.collidepoint(point):
    ...

It would be more pythonic and improve code readability to additionally add this functionality to Rect's __contains__.

if point in rect:
    ...

[Starbuck5]

Thank you for the idea, I appreciate people writing up ideas and posting them!

I'm -1 on this. I don't think it's more pythonic or readable, I think the only thing it is shorter. To reference The Zen of Python, "Explicit is better than implicit", and "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/ These are just guidelines of course, and you could say "Beautiful is better than ugly" supports your in proposal, but I believe the standard method fits The Zen of Python better.

Another consideration is than collidepoint is much more type-specific than in. Like imagine you made a mistake in the code and passed an int instead of a point-- int in rect is also valid code, so your error would be hidden.

In support of your idea is that we've already done this with rect in rect apparently. But another drawback that brings up is documentation, as far as I can tell rect in rect is completely undocumented.

[Hato1]

I appreciate the candid response, you raise valid points against. I enjoy rect in rect.

I tracked down the original rect in rect PR, where the current steering council were all present. Interestingly, @MyreMylar seemed to specifically mention being in favor of it, perhaps they'd have something to say on the matter.
pygame/pygame#2897

[aatle]

Thanks for the idea.

I'm also -1 on this. I think that it is unpythonic and less readable.
Overloading in operator for functionality other than iterable-related things is stretching the syntax. in operator basically always suggests collection functionality; bounds checking is better done with a dedicated named method and not with a non-standard syntactic sugar shortcut.

Since the usage of in would be non-standard, users or readers may be confused about what it means: will it be always False or error as a rect is an iterable of ints, or will it check if the point is one of the two points in Rect((x,y), (w,h)), or will it check if it is one of the rect's corners, or will it check if the point collides with the rect?

[Hato1]

Some more well made points. Well, I'm convinced. Feel free to close. Thanks for taking the time.