On Apr 30, 11:04 am, Jabapyth <jabap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At least a few times a day I wish python had the following shortcut
> syntax:
>
> vbl.=func(args)
>
> this would be equivalent to
>
> vbl = vbl.func(args)
>
> example:
>
> foo = "Hello world"
> foo.=split(" ")
> print foo
> # ['Hello', 'world']
>
> and I guess you could generalize this to
>
> vbl.=[some text]
> #
> vbl = vbl.[some text]
>
> e.g.
>
> temp.=children[0]
> # temp = temp.children[0]
>
> thoughts?
First thought: good luck getting something like this through.
Probably not going to happen, although I do find the idea very
intriguing.
Second thought: I don't like the proposed syntax at all.
+=, -=, /=, *=, etc. conceptually (and, if lhs object supports in-
place operator methods, actually) *modify* the lhs object.
Your proposed .= syntax conceptually *replaces* the lhs object
(actually, rebinds the lhs symbol to the new object).
If this were to be deemed worthy of the language, I would think a
better syntax would be something like:
mystring = .upper()
mystring = .replace('a', 'b')
etc.
The '=' shows clearly that mystring is being rebound to a new object.
As Steven has shown, '.' functions as an operator, so if this change
were accepted, in reality you would probably be able to write:
mystring = . upper()
mystring=.upper()
or whatever. But the canonical form would probably be with a space
before the period but not after.
Regards,
Pat
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
