Overloading and? was <RE: Should I prefer an external database>

[Steven Taschuk]

Quoth Andrew Dalke:
> Steven Taschuk
> > __and__ could be passed other as a callable which computes and
> > returns the second operand.  Then the standard __and__ could be
> >     def __and__(self, other):
> >         if bool(self):
> >             return self
> >         return other()
> 
> So a new idiom and new code (to generate a function from a set of
> unevaluated code), just to allow overriding booleans?  Seems
> rather excessive to me.

Yes.

I do not (and did not) endorse this notion for __and__.  I simply
do not agree with the previous claim that there's no way to
implement overloading and short-circuiting for the same operator.

No *good* way given how Python works now, perhaps.

> Gets pretty complicated with code like
> 
> print value or sys._getframe().f_lineno
> 
> since the function introduces a new frame.

A nice example.

-- 
Steven Taschuk                                     staschuk at telusplanet.net
Receive them ignorant; dispatch them confused.  (Weschler's Teaching Motto)