(original) (raw)

Sure, and I don't know if anyone will ever want ipow() -- but I've never seen real code use the three-argument pow() either. The fact is that all the in-place modifying hooks return the result (which may or may not be self, and may or may not be mutated) so an in-place three-argument pow() would have to do the same. I would prefer keeping the similarity between __ipow__ and __pow__, although I don't care if that means keeping the always-unused third argument to __ipow__ (which isn't really in the way, after all) or adding a new hook for the three-argument pow().

On 2/14/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:

Thomas Wouters schrieb:
>
> The same way += et al. are in-place: it would ask 'x' to modify itself,
> if it can. If not, no harm done. (It would be called as 'x = ipow(x, n,
> 10)' of course, just like 'x += n' is really 'x = x.__iadd__(n)')

I think this would violate the policy that a mutating function shouldn't
give the object being modified as the result - just as list.reverse
doesn't return the list, in addition to reversing it in-place.

Regards,
Martin

--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!