Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Craig-Wood wrote: > > > x += a > > > > does not equal > > > > x = x + a > > > > which it really should for all types of x and a > > Actually, this will *never* be the case for classes that do in-place > augmented assignment. > > a = [1] > b = [2] > > c = a + b > print a, b, c > > a += b > print a, b, c
Not sure what that is trying to show, it appears to back my point up... To rephrase your example >>> x = [1] >>> a = [2] >>> x += a >>> x [1, 2] >>> x = [1] >>> a = [2] >>> x = x + a >>> x [1, 2] >>> Which appears to support my point, x (and a for that matter) are the same for both methods wheter you do x = x + a or x += a. The mechanism is different certainly, but the result should be the same otherwise you are breaking the basic rules of arithmetic the programmer expects (the rule of least suprise). > You'll note that I didn't rebind 'a' in the non-augmented assignment. If > you do, augmented and non-augmented assignment may look the same, but > they can be very different. Perhaps if you post a worked example from the python interpreter I'll get what you mean! -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
