Jim Bosch wrote: > On 01/27/2013 05:02 AM, Michael Wild wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Is there a way to apply a CallPolicy to operator definitions? In >> particular, I'm interested in the inplace operators (+=, -=, *=, /= and >> friends). >> >> To give a bit more context: The library I'm trying to wrap exposes some >> static const objects. So far, I have been able to wrap modifying >> function by having a registration facility for these static const >> objects and a custom CallPolicy that raises an AttributError when one >> tries to modify one of the registered objects. >> >> One option I see is to directly define __iadd__ etc. instead of using >> the built-in convenience operators. However, I'm not sure whether that >> has unintended side-effects. I haven't completely understood the >> operators implementation in bp, but it looks fairly involved. >> > > I think directly implementing __iadd__ is probably your best bet. I don't > think there are any side-effects you need to worry about, but it would > probably be a lot of boilerplate. Do make sure you read up on how those > methods are supposed to be implemented in pure-Python as regards to handling > unexpected types, however, and make sure you follow the same rules in your C++ > implementation. > > Jim
I've always used e.g. __iadd__ rather than the convenience stuff. No problems. _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
