Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> + Treat all binary operators the same way as I just did for rich
> + comparison: in a <op> b, if isinstance(b, type(a)), try b.__rop__(a)
> + before trying a.__op__(b).
Some comments (could be that I'm misunderstanding your note...):
- doesn't this cause an incompatibility to classic instances
(__rop__ is fallback to __op__ not the other way around) ?
- it seems a huge performance loss to first check for __rop__
(in my experience, __rop__ is only rarely implemented)
The classic scheme for this is documented in abstract.c:
Calling scheme used for binary operations:
v w Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
new new v.op(v,w), w.op(v,w)
new old v.op(v,w), coerce(v,w), v.op(v,w)
old new w.op(v,w), coerce(v,w), v.op(v,w)
old old coerce(v,w), v.op(v,w)
Legend:
-------
* new == new style number
* old == old style number
* Action indicates the order in which operations are tried until either
a valid result is produced or an error occurs.
Most (if not all) Python builtin numeric types are new-style
numbers. How would your plan fit into this picture ?
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
______________________________________________________________________
Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4