f---ing typechecking
Neil Cerutti
horpner at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 21 08:00:09 EST 2007
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Wed Feb 21 08:00:09 EST 2007
- Previous message (by thread): f---ing typechecking
- Next message (by thread): f---ing typechecking
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2007-02-21, Hendrik van Rooyen <mail at microcorp.co.za> wrote: > "Nick Craig-Wood" <nick at craig-wood.com> wrote: >> Ie >> >> x += a >> >> does not equal >> >> x = x + a >> >> which it really should for all types of x and a > > One would hope so , yes. > > However, I think that the first form is supposed to update in place, > while the second is free to bind a new thing to x > >> (That is the kind of statement about which I'm sure someone >> will post a perfectly reasonable counterexample ;-) > > I don't think its reasonable - its just an accident of implementation.. Yup. It's analogous to the way you can do hill-starts with a manual transmission, but not with an automatic transmission. -- Neil Cerutti
- Previous message (by thread): f---ing typechecking
- Next message (by thread): f---ing typechecking
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list