On Aug 7, 9:01 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 7:18 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > alex23 schrieb: > > > > On Aug 7, 10:50 pm, Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kap...@case.edu> wrote: > > >> That isn't an operator at all. Python does not support compound > > >> comparisons like that. You have to do "a > b and b > c". > > > > You know, it costs nothing to open up a python interpreter and check > > > your certainty: > > > >>>> x = 10 > > >>>> 1 < x < 20 > > > True > > > > This is a _very_ common pattern. > > > >>>> class X(object): > > > ... def __lt__(self, other): > > > ... print 'in lt' > > > ... return True > > > ... def __gt__(self, other): > > > ... print 'in gt' > > > ... return True > > > ... > > >>>> x = X() > > >>>> 1 < x < 20 > > > in gt > > > in lt > > > True > > >>>> 20 < x < 1 > > > in gt > > > in lt > > > True > > > > dmitrey: Diez' advice was the best you received. > > > Not really. I didn't get the chaining, and Peter is right that for that > > there is no real overloading. > > You can program __lt__, __gt__, and friends to return a closure with a > boolean value. See my upcoming reply to the author.
Actually, scratch that. It won't work because the chained comparison short-circuits. If you have __lt__ return a closure then a < b won't work unless a < b is always true, which means it'll cause ordinary binary comparison to fail. Oh well. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
