On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:00:07PM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: > OK, here's a possible confusion point in augmented assignments: > Sometimes > c = a > a += b > assert a is c > fails, and sometimes not, depending on a's type. This is just begging > for trouble. Maybe it will cause massive confusion, maybe it won't. I know > I'll usually be wary of using it. In my very honest opinion, that's overstating it a bit. It isn't much more confusing than the failure of c = a + b assert c is a + b for some types, but not for others. Not to mention that a + b can produce an entirely different object than b + a depending on the types. Now, how's that for confusing ! Has anyone ever seen a problem caused by that ? I haven't, and I doubt the augmented assignment is going to cause such problems. I *have* seen something like this: c = a.extend(b) Though that was a real silly mistake on the programmers part, and hasn't repeated itself. All in all, the only way we are really going to spot these pitfalls, realistic or not, is by *using* the new syntax, and letting 'newbies' use it. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4