On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > Yeah, that's what I've been doing now.
_______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
