[Python-Dev] Why is nb_inplace_power ternary?

[Thomas Wouters]

Sure, and I don't know if anyone will ever want ipow() -- but I've never
seen real code use the three-argument pow() either. The fact is that all the
in-place modifying hooks return the result (which may or may not be self,
and may or may not be mutated) so an in-place three-argument pow() would
have to do the same. I would prefer keeping the similarity between __ipow__
and __pow__, although I don't care if that means keeping the always-unused
third argument to __ipow__ (which isn't really in the way, after all) or
adding a new hook for the three-argument pow().

On 2/14/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>
> Thomas Wouters schrieb:
> >
> > The same way += et al. are in-place: it would ask 'x' to modify itself,
> > if it can. If not, no harm done. (It would be called as 'x = ipow(x, n,
> > 10)' of course, just like 'x += n' is really 'x = x.__iadd__(n)')
>
> I think this would violate the policy that a mutating function shouldn't
> give the object being modified as the result - just as list.reverse
> doesn't return the list, in addition to reversing it in-place.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>


-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me
spread!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070214/0587b53b/attachment.html