The problem as I see it with slice assignment is that if we want to
operator to mean type defined assignment not necessary in place assignment.
It creates confusion for types which have __setitem__.
Caleb Donovick
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:59 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
L[m:m+k] specifies that a list operation will take
place on the k elements starting with m. As a value, it makes a new
list of references to those elements.
Even that is specific to lists. There's no requirement that a
RHS slice has to create new references to elemen
Yanghao Hua writes:
> For example, L[:] if appeared at the right hand side, means a copy
> (not a reference) of L, but now when appear on the left hand side, it
> behaves like an in-place copy. This two isn't it mentally
> contradicting each other?
No. I suspect you're confused by the specif
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:10 AM Angus Hollands wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you saw my reply earlier:
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/B7QPHTQSBVN4NFO3SEVR57AIGYPM3MUM/
>
> I proposed some alternative syntax already supported.
Yes, saw it ... not sure signal[.
I'm not sure if you saw my reply earlier:
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/B7QPHTQSBVN4NFO3SEVR57AIGYPM3MUM/
I proposed some alternative syntax already supported.
Python-Ideas mailing list -- python-dev(a)python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:48 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> They have a difference for the built-in list type in that slicing a
> list returns a new list with references to the same objects, thus "x =
> x[:]" is going to give you an equivalent but distinct list. That's an
> important point in some cont
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:40 PM Yanghao Hua wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:31 AM Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> > Think of it more like indexing a range. Say you have:
> >
> > L[:] = M[:]
> >
> > Which is the same as:
> >
> > L[0:len(L)] = M[0:len(M)]
> >
> > Which mentally you can think of like:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:31 AM Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Think of it more like indexing a range. Say you have:
>
> L[:] = M[:]
>
> Which is the same as:
>
> L[0:len(L)] = M[0:len(M)]
>
> Which mentally you can think of like:
>
> L[0], L[1],...L[len(L)] = M[0],M[1],...M[len(M)]
>
> Slicing is just i
Think of it more like indexing a range. Say you have:
L[:] = M[:]
Which is the same as:
L[0:len(L)] = M[0:len(M)]
Which mentally you can think of like:
L[0], L[1],...L[len(L)] = M[0],M[1],...M[len(M)]
Slicing is just indexing that represents more than one element, and if you
think about it l
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:47 PM 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
