On 2007-01-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing a class that implements rich comparisons, and I find myself
> writing a lot of very similar code. If the calculation is short and
> simple, I do something like this:
>
>
> class Parrot:
> def __eq__(self, other):
>
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el
mensaje
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:28:06 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> If it's that uniform I think you can just use __cmp__:
>
> Good point -- I had somehow picked up the mistaken idea that __cmp__ was
> depreciated in fav
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:05:53 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>> Anyone want to argue that this is a worthwhile optimization? :)
>
> Perhaps. But first test it with "==".
Oh the ignominy! That's what happens when I run code at 6am :(
>>> x = CompareWithIdentity(1); y = CompareWithIdentity(1)
>>> time
On 2007-01-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:04:17 -0600, Paul McGuire wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Surely this is only worth doing if the comparison is expensive?
> Testing beats intuition, so let's find out...
>
> class Compare:
> def __init__(self, x):
>
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:28:06 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> class Parrot:
>> def __eq__(self, other):
>> return self.plumage() == other.plumage()
>> def __ne__(self, other):
>> return self.plumage() != other.plumage()
>> def __
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:04:17 -0600, Paul McGuire wrote:
> Just a side note on writing these comparison operators. I remember when
> learning Java that this was really the first time I spent so much time
> reading about testing-for-identity vs. testing-for-equality. The Java
> conventional pra
On Jan 13, 12:52 am, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing a class that implements rich comparisons, and I find myself
> writing a lot of very similar code. If the calculation is short and
> simple, I do something like this:
>
> class Parrot:
> def __eq__(self, other):
>
"Paul McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Python, this would look like:
>
> class Parrot:
> def __eq__(self, other):
> return self is other or self.plumage() == other.plumage()
> def __ne__(self, other):
> return self is not other and self.plumage() != other.plumage()
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> I'm writing a class that implements rich comparisons, and I find myself
>> writing a lot of very similar code. If the calculation is short and
>> simple, I do something like this:
>>
>>
>> cla
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm writing a class that implements rich comparisons, and I find myself
> writing a lot of very similar code. If the calculation is short and
> simple, I do something like this:
>
>
> class Parrot:
> def __eq__(self, other):
> return self.plumage() == other.plu
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> class Parrot:
> def __eq__(self, other):
> return self.plumage() == other.plumage()
> def __ne__(self, other):
> return self.plumage() != other.plumage()
> def __lt__(self, other):
> return self.plumage() < other.plum
11 matches
Mail list logo
