copy on write

John O'Hagan research at johnohagan.com
Fri Feb 3 04:08:06 CET 2012


On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:25:00 -0500
Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> On 2/2/2012 9:17 AM, John O'Hagan wrote:
> 
> > It's not so much about the type of x but that of x[1]. Wouldn't it
> > be possible to omit the assignment simply if the object referred to
> > by x[1] uses "+=" without creating a new object? That way,
> > some_tuple[i] += y will succeed if some_tuple[i] is a list but not
> > with, say, an int. That seems reasonable to me.
> 
> There was considerable discussion of the exact semantics of augmented 
> operations when they were introduced. I do not remember if that 
> particular idea was suggested (and rejected) or not. You could try to 
> look at the PEP, if there is one, or the dicussion ( probably on
> pydev list).
> 

I think we're 12 years late on this one. It's PEP 203 from 2000 and the key phrase was:

"The in-place function should always return a new reference, either
to the old `x' object if the operation was indeed performed
in-place, or to a new object."

If this had read:

"The in-place function should return a reference to a new object
if the operation was not performed in-place."

or something like that, we wouldn't be discussing this.

The discussion on py-dev at the time was quite limited but there was some lively debate on this list the following year (in the context of widespread controversy over new-fangled features which also included list comprehensions and generators), to which the BDFL's response was:

"You shouldn't think "+= is confusing because sometimes it modifies an
object and sometimes it does".  Gee, there are lots of places where
something that's *spelled* the same has a different effect depending
on the object types involved."


That's true, but I don't think there should be a different effect depending on what _name_ we use for an operand:

>>> t=([],)
>>> l=t[0]
>>> l is t[0]
True
>>> l+=[1]
>>> t
([1],)
>>> t[0]+=[1]
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: 'tuple' object does not support item assignment
>>> t
([1, 1],)
>>> l is t[0]
True

Same object, same operator, different name, different outcome. Maybe that was obvious from the foregoing discussion, but it shocked me when put that way.

John



More information about the Python-list mailing list