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 _______________________________________________ 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
