Greg Ewing schrieb:
> Might we want to add an in-place version of the 3-arg
> pow() function one day? If so, leaving the third argument
> there could be useful.
"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de replied:
> What could the syntax for that be?
> Instead of writing
> x = pow(x, n, 10)
Either
x**= n % 10 # The **= changes the parse context, so that %
is no longer
# immediately evaluated
or
x**= (n, 10) # exponentiation to a tuple isn't currently
defined, and it
# does show that both arguments are
part of the power
# expression -- but I'm not sure it
needs a 3-argument form
# instead of just unpacking the tuple itself.
-jJ