Skip to main content

how well do you know python, part 6

class foo(list):
    def __eq__(self, other):
        raise 'foo.__eq__ called'

>>> help(list.__eq__)
Help on wrapper_descriptor:

__eq__(...)
    x.__eq__(y) <==> x==y

>>> [].__eq__(foo())
True
>>> [] == foo()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "", line 1, in ?
  File "", line 3, in __eq__
foo.__eq__ called

Help says those two statements should be equivalent. Why aren't they?

Comments

Jonathan Ellis said…
try

foo() == []
the paul said…
I think I know the answer, but I don't know if I should give it away so soon and ruin it for everyone else :) Someone on an earlier question gave a rot13 answer, so I'll do that too. Am I right?

Jura gur glcr bs gur bowrpg ba gur evtug-unaq fvqr bs n pbzcnevfba vf n fhoglcr bs gur glcr bs gur bowrpg ba gur yrsg-unaq fvqr, vgf evpu-pbzcnevfba shapgvbaf ner hfrq vafgrnq bs gubfr sebz gur yrsg-unaq fvqr, jura ninvynoyr, naq ersyrpgrq (< orpbzrf >, rgp, ohg == fgnlf gur fnzr). Nf sne nf V xabj, vg'f whfg n fcrpvny pnfr, ohg vg qbrf fbeg bs znxr
frafr jura lbh guvax nobhg ubj lbh'q hfhnyyl hfr fhoglcrf va guvf jnl.

Gur bgure bcrengvba, jurer lbh'ir gnxra gur __rd__ nggevohgr bs [] qverpgyl anghenyyl unf n qvssrerag erfhyg, fvapr gur zrgubq pubfra vf abg hc gb gur evpu-pbzcnevfba znpuvarel.
Anonymous said…
Although they are meant to be commutative (is that the right one?) they have to be defined so they are. The __eq__ of the left hand object gets called:

class hat( object ):
    def __eq__(self , other ):
     print "I am hat"
     print "other is a %s" % ( other.__class__.__name__ )
     return True

class tree( object ):
    def __eq__(self , other ):
     print "I am tree"
     print "other is a %s" % ( other.__class__.__name__ )
     return False

a = hat()
b = tree()

a == b
b == a
Anonymous said…
forgot to show the outcome of that code :-)

it prints:

I am hat
other is a tree
I am tree
other is a hat
Anonymous said…
I am not paying enough attention - that is the answer to something else... oops!
Anonymous said…
The real answer:

class hat( object ):
    def __eq__(self , other ):
     return NotImplemented

class tree( object ):
    def __eq__(self , other ):
     print "I am tree"
     print "other is a %s" % ( other.__class__.__name__ )
     return True

a = hat()
b = tree()

a == b
b == a

returns:
I am tree
other is a hat
I am tree
other is a hat

The NotImplemented forces it to try the other available __eq__()
the paul said…
mark: yeah, but list.__eq__() doesn't return NotImplemented! :)
Jonathan Ellis said…
Paul: you are correct. (Source for those curious about this and related esoterica: uggc://qbpf.clguba.bet/ers/pbrepvba-ehyrf.ugzy)
Anonymous said…
Also at http://docs.python.org/ref/coercion-rules.html

...
Sorry. Had to.

Popular posts from this blog

Why schema definition belongs in the database

Earlier, I wrote about how ORM developers shouldn't try to re-invent SQL . It doesn't need to be done, and you're not likely to end up with an actual improvement. SQL may be designed by committee, but it's also been refined from thousands if not millions of man-years of database experience. The same applies to DDL. (Data Definition Langage -- the part of the SQL standard that deals with CREATE and ALTER.) Unfortunately, a number of Python ORMs are trying to replace DDL with a homegrown Python API. This is a Bad Thing. There are at least four reasons why: Standards compliance Completeness Maintainability Beauty Standards compliance SQL DDL is a standard. That means if you want something more sophisticated than Emacs, you can choose any of half a dozen modeling tools like ERwin or ER/Studio to generate and edit your DDL. The Python data definition APIs, by contrast, aren't even compatibile with other Python tools. You can't take a table definition

Python at Mozy.com

At my day job, I write code for a company called Berkeley Data Systems. (They found me through this blog, actually. It's been a good place to work.) Our first product is free online backup at mozy.com . Our second beta release was yesterday; the obvious problems have been fixed, so I feel reasonably good about blogging about it. Our back end, which is the most algorithmically complex part -- as opposed to fighting-Microsoft-APIs complex, as we have to in our desktop client -- is 90% in python with one C extension for speed. We (well, they, since I wasn't at the company at that point) initially chose Python for speed of development, and it's definitely fulfilled that expectation. (It's also lived up to its reputation for readability, in that the Python code has had 3 different developers -- in serial -- with very quick ramp-ups in each case. Python's succinctness and and one-obvious-way-to-do-it philosophy played a big part in this.) If you try it out, pleas

A review of 6 Python IDEs

(March 2006: you may also be interested the updated review I did for PyCon -- http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/02/pycon-python-ide-review.html .) For September's meeting, the Utah Python User Group hosted an IDE shootout. 5 presenters reviewed 6 IDEs: PyDev 0.9.8.1 Eric3 3.7.1 Boa Constructor 0.4.4 BlackAdder 1.1 Komodo 3.1 Wing IDE 2.0.3 (The windows version was tested for all but Eric3, which was tested on Linux. Eric3 is based on Qt, which basically means you can't run it on Windows unless you've shelled out $$$ for a commerical Qt license, since there is no GPL version of Qt for Windows. Yes, there's Qt Free , but that's not exactly production-ready software.) Perhaps the most notable IDEs not included are SPE and DrPython. Alas, nobody had time to review these, but if you're looking for a free IDE perhaps you should include these in your search, because PyDev was the only one of the 3 free ones that we'd consider using. And if you aren