On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 01:06:45PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Michael Selik wrote: > >The += operator was meant as an alias for ``x = x + 1``. The > >fact that it mutates a list is somewhat of a surprise. > > That's very much a matter of opinion. For every person who > thinks this is a surprise, you can find another that thinks > it's obvious that += should mutate a list, and is surprised > by the fact that it works on immutable types at all.
Given the ubiquity of += in C, where it works on numbers but not lists, and the general difficulty many people have in dealing with the difference between assignment and mutation, I think the ratio would be closer to 20:1 than 1:1. But regardless, I'm pretty sure that nobody expects this: py> t = ([], None) py> t[0] += [1] Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: 'tuple' object does not support item assignment py> print(t) ([1], None) > surprised by at least one of its meanings. :-) > > Maybe we should call it the "Spanish Inquisition operator". :-) -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
