it worked.
So, what I would suggest is to drop the user-defined augmented
assignment and to ensure this equivalence :
a X= b = a = a X b
with 'X' begin one of the operators.
That seems quite an odd move. Your proposal would lead to even more
surprising behaviour; consider this:
a = [1, 2
]
Then, in the standard library, there is no use-case of user-defined
augmented assignment I could find. Of course, I find the augmented
assignement itself very useful ! I use it a lot with immutable objects
(strings, numbers, tuples, ...) but I tend to avoid it with mutables,
and so it seems in the standard
Pierre Barbier de Reuille wrote:
So, what I would suggest is to drop the user-defined augmented
assignment and to ensure this equivalence :
a X= b = a = a X b
with 'X' begin one of the operators.
It can be done, but it's unnecessary for mutable objects like
sets or lists. A new object
Reinhold Birkenfeld a écrit :
Pierre Barbier de Reuille wrote:
So, what I would suggest is to drop the user-defined augmented
assignment and to ensure this equivalence :
a X= b = a = a X b
with 'X' begin one of the operators.
It can be done, but it's unnecessary for mutable objects
I thought along these lines:
It is an augmented ASSIGNMENT. (It even has an equals sign in it).
tuples are immutable so you should not be able to assign to one of
its elements.
- So there is no problem for me - I shouldn't be messing with an
element of an
immutable type!
- Cheers, Paddy.
