Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
I agree with Josh. If anything this belongs in a wiki entry, faq page, or
stack overflow question.
--
nosy: +rhettinger
resolution: - rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
nosy: +terry.reedy
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue21484
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Feliks added the comment:
Well, there is some anecdotal evidence. ;-) I happen to have a lot of
experience with a lot of programming languages, and I was bitten by this.
Let's put it like this: it is quite easy to overlook the significance of the
sentence in question. One looks at the
New submission from Feliks:
In Sec. 7.2.1 of the Language Reference, in the description of += we have:
Also, when possible, the actual operation is performed in-place, meaning that
rather than creating a new object and assigning that to the target, the old
object is modified instead.
Although
Josh Rosenberg added the comment:
It seems to me like that is one of the most obvious consequences. How is this
not an immediately obvious consequence?
--
nosy: +josh.rosenberg
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
