Is it just Syntactic Sugar ?
mwh21 at cam.ac.uk
Tue May 30 22:35:25 CEST 2000
Johann Hibschman <johann at physics.berkeley.edu> writes:
> Thomas Wouters writes:
> > No, I have more faith in the idea that += is an *in place* add, for mutable
> > types.
> But then it loses its most basic utility, namely working with
> integers. An integer is not a mutable type.
> A simple rewrite is the only way to make sense of
> i += 1 -> i = i + 1
> if i is an integer, given the existing python variable semantics.
But it's not the only way to make sense of
a.b.c[item(d)] += e
which you'd like to be roughly equivalent to
t1 = a.b.c
t2 = item(d)
t1[t2] = t1[t2] + e
depending on whether a.b.c is an instance that implement the
appropriate magic or not.
Arrrrgh, the braindamage! It's not unlike the massively
non-brilliant decision to use the period in abbreviations
as well as a sentence terminator. Had these people no
imagination at _all_? -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
More information about the Python-list