One last shot at the Augmented Assignment PEP

[Grant Edwards]

In article <ObVv5.153507$6y5.98753496 at news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>"Huaiyu Zhu" <hzhu at users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn8s04pv.9on.hzhu at rocket.knowledgetrack.com...
>> How about using = for assignment and ! for augmentation?
>>
>> a = b = [];   a += [1]   # a==[1] and b==[]
>> a = b = [];   a +! [1]   # a==[1]==b
>>
>> a = b = ();   a += (1,)  # a==(1,) and b==()
>> a = b = ();   a +! (1,)  # Error, () is immutable.
>
>This makes sense to me.

I agree. I would expect the following to be equivalent. Always.

    a = a + b
    a += b

If they are sometimes equivalent and sometimes not, it seems to
me to violate the "rule of least surprises."

I'd vote for two sets of operators: one that is always an
assignment, and one that is always an in-place modification of
a mutable object.  [Though it seems we're arguing a moot
question once again.]

I think it looks better the other way around:

  a !+ b     rather than   a +! b

(I've too much C wiring in my brain and read the latter as a +
!b, but that's just me.)

But, "!+" would be inconsistent with "+=".

I like the "!" though, it's reminiscent of the "!" character
often used as a hint in the names of Scheme functions who
modified an object rather than just being "functional".

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do I have a lifestyle
                                  at               yet?
                               visi.com