Martin v. Löwis wrote: > It is the implementation of > > foo **= bar > > (and that's its only use), so it ought to be binary.
Maybe it's so that a type can plug the same implementation into both nb_pow and nb_inplace_pow. Although the same effect could be achieved by just leaving nb_inplace_pow null, so I suppose that's not necessary. Might we want to add an in-place version of the 3-arg pow() function one day? If so, leaving the third argument there could be useful. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
