On Mar 21, 10:05 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Virgil Dupras wrote: > > On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Marcin Ciura wrote: > >>> Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>>>>>> x, y, z = 1, 2, 3 > >>>>>>> x = y = z > >>>>>>> x, y, z > >>>> (3, 3, 3) > >>>> I certainly wouldn't expect to get (2, 3, 3). > >>> Neither would I. I must have expressed myself not clearly enough. > >>> Currently > >>> x = y = z > >>> is roughly equivalent to > >>> x = z > >>> y = z > >>> I propose to change it to > >>> y = z > >>> x = z > >>> Cheers, > >>> Marcin > >> The difference being ... ? > >> -- > >> Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > >> Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com > >> Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden > >> Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com > > > I think I see what Marcin means. The 'node' is changed too fast in the > > chain, and next is assigned to 'nextnode' instead of being assigned to > > node. > > >>>> class Node: > > ... pass > > ... > >>>> node = Node() > >>>> nextnode = Node() > >>>> backup_node = node > >>>> node = node.next = nextnode > >>>> node.next is node > > True > >>>> hasattr(backup_node,'next') > > False > > So we should take the already well-defined semantics of assignment and > change them because it seems more obvious to J. Random User? I think I > might be a little concerned about potential code breakage there. > > regards > Steve > -- > Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com > Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden > Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
I totally agree. This assignment is way too ambiguous anyway. Readability first. I just wanted to enlighten the readers on what the problem actually was since it wasn't obvious in the original post. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
