It's not because it doesn't make sense; it makes perfect sense to define "x++" as "x += 1, evaluating to the previous binding of x".
If you want to know the original reason, you'll have to either wade through old Python mailing lists or ask somebody who was there (eg. Guido), but it's easy enough to justify after the fact:
Simple increment and decrement aren't needed as much as in other languages. You don't write things like for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
in Python very often; instead you do things like for i in range(0, 10)
.
Since it's not needed nearly as often, there's much less reason to give it its own special syntax; when you do need to increment, +=
is usually just fine.
It's not a decision of whether it makes sense, or whether it can be done--it does, and it can. It's a question of whether the benefit is worth adding to the core syntax of the language. Remember, this is four operators--postinc, postdec, preinc, predec, and each of these would need to have its own class overloads; they all need to be specified, and tested; it would add opcodes to the language (implying a larger, and therefore slower, VM engine); every class that supports a logical increment would need to implement them (on top of +=
and -=
).
This is all redundant with +=
and -=
, so it would become a net loss.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…