On 7/12/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boris Borcic wrote: > > >> note that most examples of this type already work, if the target type is > >> mutable, and implement the right operations: > >> > >> def counter(num): > >> num = mutable_int(num) > >> def inc(): > >> num += 1 > >> return num > >> return inc > > > > I agree with you (and argued it in "scopes vs augmented assignment vs sets" > > recently) that mutating would be sufficient /if/ the compiler would view > > augmented assignment as mutations operators > > feel free to replace that += with an .add(1) method call; the point > wasn't the behaviour of augmented assigment, the point was that that the > most common use pattern involves *mutation* of the target object. > > the syntax isn't that important, really.
Mutation is different from rebinding. A tuple is immutable, but you can rebind the variable that refers to the tuple. I think we will confuse users if we use the term mutation to refer to name binding. Name binding is already a subtle issue, so I think the risk is significant. Jeremy _______________________________________________ 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
