Nathaniel Smith writes: > So assignment is not destructive -- the old value is retained as the > "payload".
I never assumed (and I think it is also the case for others) that the payload was retaining the old value. In fact, AFAIR, the payloads were introduced as a way of having more than one special value that (if wanted by the user) can be handled differently depending on the payload. Note that while you're assuming "IGNORED(x)" means a value that is ignoring the "x" original value, you're never writing "MISSING(x)" to retain the original value that is now missing. Thus I think that decoupling the payload from the "previous value" concept makes it all consistent regardless of the destructiveness property. That's one of the reasons why I used the "special value" concept since the beginning, so that no assumption can be made about its propagation and destructiveness properties. Lluis -- "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer." -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom Tollbooth _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
