On 16/06/2006 9:51 AM, Kirk McDonald wrote:
> ... for reasons that are obvious in retrospect. Specifically, I am
> talking about the PyNumber_InPlace* family of functions. For example,
> the docs for InPlaceAdd say:
>
> PyObject* PyNumber_InPlaceAdd(PyObject *o1, PyObject *o2)
> Return value: New reference.
> Returns the result of adding o1 and o2, or NULL on failure. The
> operation is done in-place when o1 supports it. This is the equivalent
> of the Python statement "o1 += o2".
>
> But, of course, numbers are immutable. None of them support in-place
> addition. This is not the same as o1 += o2, as o1 is not actually
> changed when using this function.
>
> Am I missing something here? Is there, in fact, no point to these
> InPlace* functions?
>
Well, I guess it all depends on your expectations ...
I've never used any of those functions, but after a quick perusal of the
manual, here's my expectation:
Looking at the heading of the manual section ("Number protocol"), I take
that to mean that the contents relate to operations on objects which
support some of the (mostly) binary operators usually associated with
numbers.
I expect that PyNumber_Add will work with numbers, strings, lists, and more.
I expect that PyNumber_InPlaceAdd will work like PyNumber_Add for
numbers and strings, and do o1.extend(o2) for lists.
I expect a similar story with PyNumber_(InPlace)?Or and sets.
By the way, I also have an expectation that the core devs don't waste
their time and talents writing, testing and documenting pointless
functions. Any suspicions that I may have had to the contrary over the
time since I was first pointed at Python 1.5.1 have proved to be wrong
and founded on my own ignorance.
HTH,
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
