On 23 January 2017 at 13:47, Hervé "Kyle" MUTOMBO <hervinhiosl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Moore is clearly right when He says that this "a .= 1+1" doesn't make > sense. It means nothing understandable although in "a .= s(e)" can mean > something. As a matter of fact "a .= EXPR" is bound to succeed only in a > very small set of cases.
By responding to a digest you make it very hard to see what you're replying to. Could you get the messages as individual ones, and reply quoting the context properly, please? I'm not sure how to interpret your above comment in the light of your other comment > Pleasing to see and somehow elegant. I believe .= is a good idea. as I'm arguing pretty strongly that .= is *not* a good idea, because there are all sorts of ill-defined cases that haven't been clearly explained in a way that matches the rest of Python's grammar and semantics. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
