Comparisons and sorting of a numeric class....
andrew3 at r3dsolutions.com
Wed Jan 7 03:01:48 CET 2015
On 01/06/2015 06:02 AM, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 08:30 AM, Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>>> So, I'm not sure I can subclass boolean either because that too is a
>>>> built in class ... but I'm not sure how else to make an object that
>>>> acts as boolean False, but can be differentiated from false by the
>>>> operator. It's frustrating -- what good is subclassing, if one cant
>>>> subclass all the base classes the language has?
> I said earlier that I don't think it's possible to do what you're
> doing without your users code being somewhat aware of your changes.
Aye. You did. And I didn't disagree. :)
The goal is merely to trip up those who don't know what I'm doing as
little as possible and only break their code where the very notion of
uncertainty is incompatible with what they are doing, or where they did
something very stupid anyway... eg: to break it where there is a good
reason for it to be broken.
I may not achieve my goal, but I at least hope to come close...
> But as long as the user doesn't check for the subclass-ness of your
> bool-like function, you should manage. In Python, duck-typing is
> encouraged, unlike java or C++, where the only substitutable classes
> are subclasses.
but if you can't subclass a built in type -- you can't duck type it --
for I seem to recall that Python forbids duck typing any built in class
nut not subclasses. So your two solutions are mutually damaged by
Guido's decision; And there seem to be a lot of classes that python
simply won't allow anyone to subclass. ( I still need to retry
subclassing float, that might still be possible. )
Removing both options in one blow is like hamstringing the object
oriented re-useability principle completely. You must always re-invent
the wheel from near scratch in Python....
>> --Guido van Rossum
>> So, I think Guido may have done something so that there are only two
>> instances of bool, ever.
>> eg: False and True, which aren't truly singletons -- but follow the
>> singleton restrictive idea of making a single instance of an object do
>> the work for everyone; eg: of False being the only instance of bool
>> returning False, and True being the only instance of bool returning
>> Why this is so important to Guido, I don't know ... but it's making it
>> VERY difficult to add named aliases of False which will still be
>> detected as False and type-checkable as a bool. If my objects don't
>> type check right -- they will likely break some people's legacy code...
>> and I really don't even care to create a new instance of the bool object
>> in memory which is what Guido seems worried about, rather I'm really
>> only after the ability to detect the subclass wrapper name as distinct
>> from bool False or bool True with the 'is' operator. If there were a
> There's already a contradiction in what you want. You say you don't
> want to create a new bool object (distinct from True and False), but
> you have to create an instance of your class. If it WERE a subclass
> of bool, it'd be a bool, and break singleton.
Yes there seems to be a contradiction but I'm not sure there is ... and
it stems in part from too little sleep and familiarity with other
Guido mentioned subclassing in 'C' as part of his justification for not
allowing subclassing bool in python.
That's what caused me to digress a bit... consider:
In 'C++' I can define a subclass without ever instantiating it; and I
can define static member functions of the subclass that operate even
when there exists not a single instance of the class; and I can typecast
an instance of the base class as being an instance of the subclass. So
-- (against what Guido seems to have considered) I can define a function
anywhere which returns my new subclass object as it's return value
without ever instantiating the subclass -- because my new function can
simply return a typecasting of a base class instance; The user of my
function would never need to know that the subclass itself was never
instantiated... for they would only be allowed to call static member
functions on the subclass anyway, but all the usual methods found in the
superclass(es) would still be available to them. All the benefits of
subclassing still exist, without ever needing to violate the singleton
character of the base class instance.
So part of Guido's apparent reason for enforcing singleton ( dual
singleton / dualton? ) nature of 'False' and 'True' isn't really
justified by what 'C++' would allow because C++ could still be made to
enforce singleton instances while allowing subclassing *both* at the
There seems to be some philosophical reason for what Guido wants that he
hasn't fully articulated...?
If I understood him better-- I wouldn't be making wild ass guesses and
testing everything I can think of to work around what he chose...
> If you ignore your subclass "requirement," 'is' should do the right
> thing. Whatever your class instance is, it won't be the same object
> as True or as False.
It was never a requirement; It was an experiment to see how close I
could get to identical behavior.
It didn't work... it will have to be discarded... Therefore, I know I
will break some peoples code...
>> way to get the typecheck to match,
> That's a piece of legacy code which you won't be able to support, as
> far as I can see.
Yep. Python cuts off re-usability at the ankles...
I have NO way to signal to my users that my object is compatible with
bool. For that's what subclass typechecks are about... If someone
*needs* an object that does everything bool does (proto-type bool), the
only portable test for compatibility is to check if the object is a bool...
That pretty much kills legacy support / compatability... no one can know
my object is compatible with bool in a portable fashion...
>> I wouldn't mind making a totally
>> separate class which returned the False instance; eg: something like an
>> example I modified from searching on the web:
>> class UBool():
>> def __nonzero__(self): return self.default
>> def __init__( self, default=False ): self.default = bool(default)
>> def default( self, default=False ): self.defualt = bool(default)
>> but, saying:
>> >>> error=UBool(False)
>> >>> if error is False: print "type and value match"
>> Failed to have type and value match, and suggests that 'is' tests the
>> type before expanding the value.
> Not at all. It doesn't check the type or the value. It checks
> whether it's the SAME object.
I hate ever having learned PHP before I learned python. I bet you can
guess what version of 'is' I remembered the rule for when overtired...
>> It's rather non intuitive, and will break code -- for clearly error
>> expands to 'False' when evaluated without comparison functions like ==.
>> >>> if not error: print "yes it is false"
>> yes it is false
> No, the object False is not referenced in the above expression. You're
> checking the "falseness" of the expression. Same as if you say
> if not 0
> if not mylist
Hmm... your a bit confusing / unclear ?
I think the object returned by 'not' is True or False. So the
expression as a whole does reference either False or True objects. I
didn't think that 'error' was the False object itself, just that the
evaluation of any expression containing 'error' eventually called
__nonzero__() which I defined to return the False object.
What I was trying to figure out is order of precedence ; when does
__nonzero__() get called, and is it called at all. I think it was
called, because the object reference itself is something that is a non
null pointer... and I would expect 'not (...something nonzero.,.) ' to
evaluate as false and the print statement NOT to be executed.
However, the print statement was executed -- so that possibility was
eliminated. So, I am pretty sure that at some point __nonzero__() was
called, and error was replaced with whatever __nonzero__() returned; In
my test, that would be the 'False' object. Correct?
>> >>> print error.__nonzero__()
>> >>> if error==False: print "It compares to False properly"
> You control this one by your __eq__ method.
Yes... now we're really getting somewhere.
That's something I overlooked.
Question: If two different class's instances are being compared by
'==', and both define an __eq__ method, which method gets called? ( I
don't know if that applied here... but I'm not familiar with order of
> 1) read up more closely on special methods, and on the meanings of
> id() and 'is'
> 2) And don't expect that any change you make at this level could be
> transparent to all existing applications. It's a contradiction in terms.
1) Yes -- I'll do that. although -- my interpretation of 'is' was
simply tiredness... I knew better and forgot. You put my head back on
2) I never did have that expectation ; I just want to do the best I
can... and not settle for third best...
To sum up:
It's fairly clear that whenever my library returns actual True and False
objects from magnitude comparison operators, there will be full backward
compatibility with float. So -- for cases where the two numeric types
don't have any difference in meaning, there will still be full
compatibility. (That, thankfully, is the most typical use case...)
For the remaining quasi 'False' return values, I know the 'is'
operator must always fail. So if anyone stupidly puts '(a>b) is False'
in their legacy floating point code for no really good reason -- well,
too bad; it breaks -- But that's the best I can do.
However; I think I can still hope to be compatible with '(a>b) == False'
by defining my own '==' operator ; and still allow users an explicit
'is' test for my singleton-like instances of PartTrue, Unknown, and
PartFalse so that they can distinguish them from an actual 'False' object...
I think I can also define a relative certainty magnitude operator for
falseness so users can test if PartTrue is more true than False. (
PartTrue > False ) etc. and thereby allow them to make their own custom
sorts based on relative true-ness when needed.
And, finally, on the sort operation consistency you mentioned in an
earlier email -- your comments, and another posters, about that is well
taken. It's something I'll have to review again later... but in
essence, I don't think it's a problem because whenever two variables are
definitely '>' or '<' each other with an actual True or False object
returned -- I already know the consistency with respect to a third
variable will hold. On the other hand, By definition, all quasi false
values return false for both '>' and '<', so what ends up happening is
that python treats any uncertainty as if the variables were equal, and
so they are grouped together but left in the same order as they were
originally sent to the search. (stable).
But I don't think that stops me from treating the sort order of all
items which are quasi-equal, as a second search (hierarchical search).
eg: Sort first by definite magnitude, then among those deemed 'equal',
sort them by average expectation value... That's going to be good
enough for me and my users, for the sort order of truly quasi equal
things is arbitrary anyway... as long as it's not 'defintely wrong'
they'll have no reason to complain.
More information about the Python-list