On 02/03/2014 13:38, Eric Jacoboni wrote:
Le 02/03/2014 13:32, Ian Kelly a écrit :
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Eric Jacoboni <eric.jacob...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, i think i'm gonna forget += on lists :)
Well, do what you want, but I think you're taking the wrong lesson
from this. Don't forget about using += on lists. Instead, forget
about using assignments, augmented or otherwise, on tuple elements.
Would you expect this to work?
Well, the thing about += on lists that makes me forget it, like i said
in my previous post, is that its behaviour is not consistent with +.
The behaviour is consistent except when you try to modify a tuple.
Don't get me wrong: i don't expect that modifying a tuple element works.
That's exactly my point: my initial question was, why it "half works :
it should not work at all". I was thinking that += on lists worked like
update() or extend() : modifying lists in place... It was my mistake
I'd like to see you get update to work on a list. This shows how
confused you are over this issue.
So, yes, i still don't get the point using a += operation, which is not
even consistent with the + operation (see my exemple on "spam" in my
previous post). The + operator to return the modified list and the
update() or extend() methods to do in place replacements are well enough
for my present needs. Maybe, in the future, i will find a use case of +=
for lists which is not covered by others methods, though... Who knows? I
don't doubt that Python designers have made this choice and this
behavior for a good reason: i've just not get it yet.
All of this comes about because of the known issue with tuples. Take
them out of the equation and the behaviour of =, +=, extend and append
is consistent.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
