On 2006-07-19, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> So IMV those preparation before the attachment, belong to >> whatever the interpreter does before it actually attaches >> an object to a name/slot. >> >> So the evaluation of the target is part of what is done by >> STORE_SUBSCR or __setitem__. >> >> Now you can object to the fact that I have divided the work >> within an opcode. > > But I won't. The amount of duplication that can be factored out with > augmented assignment depends on the granularity of operations. I can agree with that. But until now each time I tried to suggest that the STORE_SUBSCR or __setitem__ are involved in the evaluation of the target, I was told I shouldn't look at things that way. > And the > granularity of operations depends on the interpreter. Hence my claim that > the details are necessarily interpreter dependent. Well my impression from reading the language reference is that it suggests that a greater amount of duplication is factored out than the granularity of the CPython implementation allows. But since you already agreed that there is room for improvement in the augmented assignment reference I will leave it at that. I would like to thank everybody for their contributions, but I think everything worth while has been said, so I will no longer contribute to this thread. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
