RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 18 02:17:03 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/087294.html

Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Does anyone think it was not a good idea to put in-place operations in 
> the operator module?  For some objects, they don't map() as well as 
> their regular counterparts.  Some in-place operations rely on the 
> interpreter to take care of the actual assignment.   I've not yet seen 
> good use cases for operator.isub() for example.

Given that Python has augmented assignment delimiters, but no 'in-place 
operators', and that the 'in-place operations' used to partially 
implemented them cannot be 'in-place' for immutables (and hence are 
actually aliases for the corresponding 'regular' operations, I agree 
that they are a bit odd and mostly useless.  About the only use case I 
can think of is something like map(operator.iadd, mutable_seqs, items), 
where mutable_seqs includes instances of user classes than defind 
.__iadd__ but not .append ;-)

On the other hand, the kitchen-sink policy saves debate.

tjr

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/087294.html below:

[Python-Dev] In-place operators