Think of it more like indexing a range. Say you have:
L[:] = M[:]
Which is the same as:
L[0:len(L)] = M[0:len(M)]
Which mentally you can think of like:
L[0], L[1],...L[len(L)] = M[0],M[1],...M[len(M)]
Slicing is just indexing that represents more than one element, and if you think about it like that slice assignment makes much more sense.
On Jun 5, 2019, 2:56 AM -0500, Yanghao Hua <yanghao.py@gmail.com>, wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer@ugent.be> wrote:
I'd like to get rid of all the signal and HDL stuff (whatever that
means) in this thread, so I think what the original poster really wants
is an "assign in place" operator. Basically, something like += or *= but
without the arithmetic.
When you think of it this way, it's not an unreasonable request. There
would be at least one major use of this operator within CPython, for
lists. With this proposal, the awkward syntax (there are 219 instances
of this in the CPython sources)
L[:] = new_list
would become
L <== new_list
The part I liked it is, with <== basically all kinds of unnecessary
details has been hidden from users.
For example, L[:] if appeared at the right hand side, means a copy
(not a reference) of L, but now when appear on the left hand side, it
behaves like an in-place copy. This two isn't it mentally
contradicting each other?
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
%(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/