On Jul 11, 2013, at 14:07, Corey Sarsfield <subbarker@gmail.com> wrote:

I came up with the idea after having some code on dicts that looked like:

a[b][c] = foo(a[b][c])

So in this case there are twice as many look-ups going on as there need to be, even if a[b][c] were to be pulled out into x.

If I were to do:

a[b][c] += 1

Would it be doing the lookups twice behind the scenes?

Effectively, the best it could possibly do is something like this: tmp = a[b] tmp,__setitem__('c', tmp.__getitem__('c').__iadd__(1)) So yes, there are two lookups. But if a[b] is a dict... Who cares? The lookup is a hash--which is cached after the first one--plus indexing into an array.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, R. Michael Weylandt <michael.weylandt@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Corey Sarsfield <subbarker@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've always found +=, -= and the like to be handy, but I had hoped like so many other things in python there would be a generic form of this functionality.

x += 5 could be expressed as x = ? + 5 perhaps.

Can you flesh this out a bit further? Isn't x += 5 <--> x = x + 5 already defined unless a class specifically does something funny with __iadd__?

Cheers, Michael

-- Corey Sarsfield _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbueno@python.org.br>wrote:

I don't know if what I miss most is the samething the OP is asking for - but the idea of re-using a value retrieved in an expression in the same expression - without the need to assign to a temporary variable.

Like in: value = expensive_function(b) if expensive_function(b) else default_value

(of course this is a trivial example - but nonetheless it would require an extra "if" statement to avoid the double call)

How about: value = expensive_function(b) or default_value One call, exact same behavior as you request. Available since Python 1.0. -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Corey Sarsfield <subbarker@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, what I wanted was to be able to reference the variable being assigned to

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not something that really exists in Python. With a classic assignment statement: foo = (expression) the previous value of foo is abandoned and a new value bound to that name. What you want is to reference that previous value (presumably with the same potential for NameError or UnboundLocalError if there is none). Effectively, elevate the magic of "foo = 5; foo += 10" to full feature. There HAVE been times when I've wanted something like this, but they're extremely rare. Also, the nature of Python makes the benefit somewhat less than it might be in, say, C++; it's not going to be possible to do the lookups once and keep track of the memory location, because Python simply doesn't work that way. Whether __setitem__ can take advantage of a previous __getitem__ is entirely up to the class. ChrisA

If you look up "Lenses" in the context of Haskell/Scala, you'll see they're something similar. It's not exactly the same, but the basic idea is to reify a gettable/settable variable slot into a first class value. You can then pass around the object to pass around the get/set-ability, or create higher-order functions like transform that operate on the reified "slot": // pseudo-scala to increment something; a macro like this doesn't exist // but it wouldn't be too hard to write lens(var).transform(_ + 1) // increment a local lens(var.member).transform(_ + 1) // increment a member lens(var(0)(1)).transform(_ + 1) // increment an array; array accesses in scala use round braces // could use operator overloading/implicits to make it more concise var ** (_ + 1) // increment a local Generally these lenses are used for updating nested immutable data structures (it gets really verbose/unDRY normally) but it's something similar to what you want, so if you're looking for this sort of thing, that would be the place to start. None of this is going to end up in python any time soon, because it's all still pretty researchy and a solid implementation is still more "PhD" rather than "weekend hack". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another possible solution for the value = expensive(b) if expensive(b) else default problem, if you don't want a statement to assign to a temporary variable, is to use a `let` expression // raw version value = (lambda res: res if res else default)(expensive(b)) // with a helper function `let` value = let(expensive(b))(lambda res: res if res else default) I'd get skewered at code review if i ever wrote this manually, but I've actually used this quite a lot in auto-generated code (i.e. macros) where I want to "assign" to a local value but am unable to create a statement. In fact, if you want to you can forego assignments entirely in your program and use nested `let` bindings for everything since they're basically equivalent. Then you can start putting the braces outside the `let(...)` as in `(let ...)` because you'll be basically be writing Lisp. -Haoyi On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbueno@python.org.br>wrote:

On 11 July 2013 21:07, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbueno@python.org.br

wrote:

...

... Like in: value = expensive_function(b) if expensive_function(b) else default_value

(of course this is a trivial example - but nonetheless it would require an extra "if" statement to avoid the double call)

How about:

value = expensive_function(b) or default_value

One call, exact same behavior as you request. Available since Python 1.0.

Because, as a I said, that was a naive example - if the predicate was: value = expensive_function(b) if expensive_function(b) > threshold else default_value

There is no way "or" would work - Anyway - just forget about it -let's see where this e-mail thread leads

(I worked around this particular issue with a couple of helper simple functions to push the value to a list and return it back ) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

On Jul 11, 2013 8:02 PM, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <jsbueno@python.org.br> wrote:

...

value = expensive_function(b) or default_value

One call, exact same behavior as you request. Available since Python

1.0.

Because, as a I said, that was a naive example - if the predicate was: value = expensive_function(b) if expensive_function(b) > threshold else default_value

There is no way "or" would work - Anyway - just forget about it -let's see where this e-mail thread leads

value = ([v for v in [expensive_function(b)] if v > threshold] or [default_value])[0] I admit it's not the most elegant, but it works generically. Or just use a temp variable. No shame in doing so.