> I'm sure that consistency/completeness/safe_vs_sorry was the reason they > were added. But, if they aren't useful, they never should have been > (IMO). Why is that? [you are then giving a reason:] > It wastes the time of people who try to use them and then > find-out that they don't act as expected What people in particular? Certainly, the doc string is wrong: isub(a, b) -- Same as a -= b. That's not quite the same - you would have to write a = isub(a, b) -- Same as a -= b. (right?) However, anybody who understands what isub does already knows that property. I can't imagine users browsing through the operator module and thinking "hmm, what might that isub function do?". > or that you can't use them with containers s[k] += x etc.) Why not? s[k] = iadd(s[k], x) works fine, no? > Maybe someone somewhere has some interesting use for > these in-place operator function. I hope so. It could be important if you want apply it to mutable objects, i.e. where the assignment doesn't do anything. Regards, Martin
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