On 5/10/2013 11:02 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 05/10/2013 10:15 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
But the last few lines of demo1 demonstrate that NIE doesn't like,
somehow, remember that its values, deep down under
the covers, are really int. And doesn't even like them when they are
wrapped into IntET objects. This may or may not
be a bug in the current Enum implementation.
You're right, sort of. ;)
If you do
print( repr( NIE1.x.value ))
you'll see
('NIE1.x', 1)
In other words, the value of NEI.x is `('NEI1.x', 1)` and that is what
you would have to pass back into NEI to get the enum member.
Ah! But the value of NIE.x should be IntET('NIE.x', 1), no? So Enum is
presently saving the constructor parameters as the value, rather than
the constructed object? So for Enums of builtin types, there is little
difference, but for complex types (as opposed to complex numbers), there
is a difference, and I guess I ran into the consequences of that difference.
As an aside, I suspect you are doing this the hard way. Perhaps
writing your own __new__ in NIE will have better results
NIE.__new__ wouldn't have the name available, unless it is passed in. So
it seems to me that Enum (or Enum+) has to pass in the parameter... in
which case NIE.__new__ can be pretty ordinary.
Other implementation strategies that occurred to me... maybe I'll try
them all, if I have time... but time looks to get scarcer soon...
* I'm playing with adding another keyword parameter to Enum, but it is
presently giving me an error about unknown keyword parameter passed to
__prepare__ even though I added **kwds to the list of its parameters.
I'll learn something by doing this.
* Implement a subclass of Enum that has a bunch of operator tracking
methods like IntET. However, the results of arithmetic operations
couldn't add a new enumeration member (legally), so some other type
would still have to exist... and it would also have to have those
operation tracking methods.
* Implement a subclass of EnumMeta that installs all the operator
tracking methods. Same legal issue.
* Do one of the above, but allow new calculated members to exist,
although perhaps not in the initial, iterable set. Might have to call it
something besides Enum to obey the proclamations :) FlagBits, maybe.
But it could use much the same technology as Enum.
(I'd try, but I gotta get some sleep! ;) .
Thanks for the response... it cleared up the demo1 mystery, anyway.
Oh, newest code posted.
That'll give me some practice pulling from your repository into mine :)
_______________________________________________
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
