On 12/25/05, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Reinhold, > > On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 12:37:53PM +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: > > > that nobody fully understands the convoluted code paths of abstract.c > > > any more :-( > > > > Time for a rewrite? >
Maybe. Also realize we will have a chance to clean it up when Python 3 comes around since the classic class stuff will be ripped out. That way we might have a chance to streamline the code. > Of course, speaking of a rewrite, PyPy does the "right thing" in these > two areas. Won't happen to CPython, though. There are too much > backward-compatibility issues with the PyTypeObject structure; I think > we're doomed with patching the bugs as they show up. > > Looking up in the language reference, I see no mention of NotImplemented > in the page about __add__, __radd__, etc. I guess it's a documentation > bug as well, isn't it? The current code base tries to implement the > following behavior: Returning NotImplemented from any of the binary > special methods (__xxx__, __rxxx__, __ixxx__) makes Python proceed as if > the method was not defined in the first place. > This is what I always assumed the behaviour was supposed to be, so I am quite happy to go with that. -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
