On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2009/3/17 Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com>: >> Does anyone think it was not a good idea to put in-place operations in the >> operator module? For some objects, they don't map() as well as their >> regular counterparts. Some in-place operations rely on the interpreter to >> take care of the actual assignment. I've not yet seen good use cases for >> operator.isub() for example. > > I thought the point of the operator module (unlike most modules) was > to provide a comprehensive set of Python operators as functions for > consistency even if there usefulness was questionable.
Right. Since Python doesn't have a notation like "operator +" for turning operators into functions, the operator module provides this functionality. Better safe than sorry. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
