On Aug 10, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 8/10/06, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It makes just as much sense as assigning to an array access, and the >> semantics would be pretty similar. > > No. Array references (x[i]) and attribute references (x.a) represent > "locations". Function calls represent values. This is no different > than the distinction between lvalues and rvalues in C.
Yes, function calls cannot be lvalues right now. However, there is no reason that a function call _could not_ be an lvalue. That is exactly what the addition of __setcall__ would allow. On Aug 10, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > Honestly, it might make more sense to get rid of augmented > assignment in Py3K rather than to add this. It seems that the need > for something like this springs primarily from the existence of > augmented assignment. It makes just as much (and just as little) sense to have normal assignment to function calls as it does augmented assignment to function calls. I don't see any reason to single out augmented assignment here. Anyhow, enough time wasted on this. I don't really think python should add this feature, but it _does_ make sense, and would have understandable and consistent semantics if it were added. James _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
