Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> When you think of it this way, it's not an unreasonable request. There
> would be at least one major use of this operator within CPython, for
> lists. With this proposal, the awkward syntax (there are 219 instances
> of this in the CPython sources)
>
>L[:] =
On 6/4/2019 6:47 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I'd like to get rid of all the signal and HDL stuff (whatever that
means) in this thread, so I think what the original poster really wants
is an "assign in place" operator. Basically, something like += or *= but
without the arithmetic.
I believe that
Ok agreed on .update and .extend. Two operators (+= and <==) doing the
same thing is dumb. And for .append I agree "this thing is the same, just
add this thing" is a little at odds with "update this thing when i send
this other thing into it".
> my_gen.send
>
> Sure, this makes sense to me!
>
I
On 2019-06-04 14:34, Ricky Teachey wrote:
"update an object with another" (dunder update)
Yes, that's essentially what I meant. To me, "assign an object in place"
and "update an object with another" mean the same thing.
A few come to mind:
my_dict.update
This is PEP 584, where += is used
I agree this needs to be reframed but suggest that assignment in place
isn't the most useful mental model.
Instead, something like "generically apply a value to another" (dunder
apply) or "update an object with another" (dunder update) might have a
prayer of making sense. Perhaps there are other s
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 12:47, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2019-06-04 13:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:> As far as I can tell, there
> is no difference between your proposal
> > and the OP's proposal except you have changed the name of the dunder
> > from __arrow__ to __iassign__.
>
> I never claimed t
On 2019-06-04 13:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:> As far as I can tell, there
is no difference between your proposal
and the OP's proposal except you have changed the name of the dunder
from __arrow__ to __iassign__.
I never claimed that there was a difference. I just tried to clarify
what the orig
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:47:30PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> When you think of it this way, it's not an unreasonable request. There
> would be at least one major use of this operator within CPython, for
> lists. With this proposal, the awkward syntax (there are 219 instances
> of this in t
I'd like to get rid of all the signal and HDL stuff (whatever that
means) in this thread, so I think what the original poster really wants
is an "assign in place" operator. Basically, something like += or *= but
without the arithmetic.
When you think of it this way, it's not an unreasonable re
