[Python-Dev] Why is nb_inplace_power ternary? (original) (raw)

Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org
Wed Feb 14 19:42:04 CET 2007

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 at 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 at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070214/0587b53b/attachment.html

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list