Message230402
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Joshua.Chin, ethan.furman, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger |
| Date | 2014-10-31.22:23:13 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1414794193.36.0.480135087255.issue22766@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I think I've changed my mind on this. The important distinction is not between "ducktyping" or "cooperating". It's that this is an in-place mutating operation. A mutating operation should always be the responsibility of the receiver, and so it sounds wrong to be able to delegate it to the read-only operand. For example, when calling list.extend(op), the list object doesn't allow `op` to take over the operation's semantics. So I think TypeError is the right outcome here. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-10-31 22:23:13 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, rhettinger, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, Joshua.Chin |
| 2014-10-31 22:23:13 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1414794193.36.0.480135087255.issue22766@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-10-31 22:23:13 | pitrou | link | issue22766 messages |
| 2014-10-31 22:23:13 | pitrou | create | |