On 05/02/10 10:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 02 May 2010 05:08:53 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote: > >> > On 05/01/10 11:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:34:34 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: >>> >> >>> >> In practice though, I think that's a difference that makes no >>> >> difference. It walks like an operator, it swims like an operator, and >>> >> it quacks like an operator. >>> >> >>> >> >> > Nope it's not. A full-time operator in python have a reflected version >> > (e.g. __radd__), which dot does not have. > What are the reflected versions of __eq__ and __ne__ (binary == and != > operators)?
Python do not have them now, but it does make sense if python have them[1]. OTOH, given current python's language semantic, __rgetattr__ doesn't make any sense; adding __rgetattr__ would require a quite fundamental change to the language's semantic, primarily how attribute resolution works. [1] though they'd probably be dismissed as bad idea since equality and inequality are supposed to be a symmetric relation; reflected (in)equality makes it way too easy to break that premise > And __neg__, __pos__ and __inv__ (for the unary - + and ~ operators)? > > And the three-argument form of __pow__ for power(1, 2, x)? I know you're a famed nitpicker, but don't be silly, reflected operator, by definition, only makes sense for binary operator. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
