Message171012
| Author |
terry.reedy |
| Recipients |
chris.jerdonek, cvrebert, docs@python, ezio.melotti, mark.dickinson, mikehoy, rhettinger, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2012年09月22日.21:01:56 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1348347717.78.0.377914197908.issue12067@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
You are right, I did not look deep enough. I was fooled by the conversion of NotImplemented, returned from object.__le__, etc, to TypeError. Sorry for that noise.
For comparison and arithmetic, the actual alternative to defining a function that returns NotImplemented seems to be to not define it at all.
class C():
def __ge__(self, other):
return True
def __add__(self, other):
return 44
__radd__ = __add__
class O():
pass # removed NotImplemented defs
c = C()
o = O()
print(c >= o, o <= c)
# True True
print(c + o, o + c)
# 44 44
(I looked at the codes for binary_op1 in abstract.c and do_richcompare in object.c and do not yet see any effective difference between not defined and a NotImplemented return.)
I'll take a look at the patch later. |
|