On 11/03/2014 07:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 01:02:19PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 10/29/2014 06:38 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 10/29/2014 05:53 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I propose a few things:
* institute a policy that, in the event of a new function being added to the operator module, only the dunderless version will be added;
* change the documentation to make it clear that the dunderless versions should be used, rather than merely being "convenience" functions;
* add a prominent note that the dunder versions exist for backwards compatibility only and should not be used in new code.
+1
Actually, make that -1.
I'm just crafting some tests to explore how NotImplemented impacts various classes, and the dunder versions make the whole thing much nicer.
I'm surprised. I can't imagine dunder names making anything look nicer. It sounds like you are writing "operator.__add__" instead of "operator.add", which doesn't look nicer to me.
The dunder versions are being used to check if a particular method is in a type's dictionary, to see how the subclass should be tailored for a test. Without the dunder versions I would have had to create my own mapping between dunder and dunderless names.
Can you show me your code?
Check out the "Role of NotImplemented" over on pydev. The script is the last half of the first post. -- ~Ethan~