Antoon Pardon wrote: >>Since ints are immutable objects, you shouldn't expect the value of b.a >>to be modified in place, and so there is an assignment to b.a, not A.a. > > > You are now talking implementation details. I don't care about whatever > explanation you give in terms of implementation details. I don't think > it is sane that in a language multiple occurence of something like b.a > in the same line can refer to different objects >
This isn't an implementation detail; to leading order, anything that impacts the values of objects attached to names is a specification issue. An implementation detail is something like when garbage collection actually happens; what happens to: b.a += 2 is very much within the language specification. Indeed, the language specification dictates that an instance variable b.a is created if one didn't exist before; this is true no matter if type(b.a) == int, or if b.a is some esoteric mutable object that just happens to define __iadd__(self,type(other) == int). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
