Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > [Martin v. Löwis] >> I would object to their removal, though, >> because it would hurt my sense of symmetry. > > I wasn't going to propose removal. If everyone had > agreed that the operator in-place functions were > problematic, I was going to suggest moving their > docs to a second page and documenting their limatations > (like we had done long ago with some of the builtins > that were no longer essential and had become obsolete). > That would leave the main page full of the operator > functions that have real utility.
Splitting their documentation out to a separate page that explains their lack of usefulness when dealing with containers or immutable objects sounds like a great idea. As you say, due to their reliance on a separate assignment step they really are more limited than the other functions in the operator module. You didn't actually make that proposal in your original message though - you just asked if people thought it was a mistake to have added them to the operator module (which implied, at least to me, that you were going to suggest deprecating them). So +1 from me for changing the operator module docs as you suggest. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
