[Chicago] Ode to <>
ianb at colorstudy.com
Fri Sep 1 01:03:14 CEST 2006
Brian Ray wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Brian Ray wrote:
>>> Instead all together, it would be nice to be able to define our own
>>> operators from time to time.
> Ok, this was not exactly what I was talking about. Interesting, none
> the less.
> More, it may be handy to say:
> class ...
> def operator !=(self, rhs):
> if self.something != rhs.something:
> return True
> return False
> Or something along the lines of actually associating the operators
> with classes.
Yes, "operator !=" is more clear than "__ne__", though I don't know how
you'd spell "__ror__" or "__nonzero__", which are special methods that
aren't associated with an operator (the first kind of is, but there's
two methods associated -- __ror__ and __or__).
For anyone following along but unsure about these magic methods:
If you really want a version of Python where you can *add* new
operators, then you might want to look at Logix:
Ian Bicking | ianb at colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Chicago