On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Travis E. Oliphant < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Charles R Harris wrote: >> > Shouldn't this raise an NotImplementedError exception? >> > >> > In [7]: type(remainder(complex192(1), complex192(1))) >> > Out[7]: <type 'NotImplementedType'> >> I'm not sure if it is relevant in this case but we do need to keep in >> mind that Python uses the NotImplementedType as a signal to hand off the >> calculation to the other object in a binary operation. >> >> If we change this here we may affect that behavior, unintentionally. >> > > But Python only does that if the Py_TPFLAGS_CHECKTYPES bit in the tp_flag > is set. With that flag it should try with the other variable, then raise a > Type error if that fails also. That's why I think the flag isn't set for > these variables; we should never see the NotImplementedType. And at first > glance at the code, I don't think that flag *is* set for the type. > This particular return comes from ufunc_generic_call and I'm not sure what Python should or can do in this case. Thoughts? Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
