Gabriel Genellina wrote: > At Friday 25/8/2006 00:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ># This is what I have in mind: > > > >class Item(object): > > def __add__(self, other): > > return Add(self, other) > > And this works fine... why make thinks complicated?
Yes, I agree it's simpler, and up until now that's the way I always did it. Many Many times. Now I am looking for a way to build ensembles of these lazy classes at the meta-level. (think abstract algebra). > >Item.__add__ = Add > > This doesn't make sense... __add__ should be a method, not a class... No, that's not true. It can be this callable: def add(a, b): return Add(a,b) Item.__add__ = add So my thinking was this: why can't I use a callable class ? > x+y get translated to x.__add__(y) No that's not true at all. The self argument to __add__ ends up being the Add instance, not the Item instance: z=x+y is translated to z.__add__(y) Simon. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
