Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039699.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> So perhaps for 2.3 we should just apologetically note the anomaly
> in the docs, and for 2.4 forbid the former case, i.e., require both
> __mul__ AND __rmul__ to exist if one wants to code sequence
> classes that can be multiplied by integers on either side...?
> 
> Any opinions, anybody...?

What's wrong with the status quo?  So 3*x is undefined, and it happens
to return x*3.  Is that so bad?

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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