> George Sakkis wrote:
> > "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>Is there a good way to determine if an object is a numeric type?
> >
> > In your example, what does your application consider to be numeric?
>
> Well, here's the basic code:
>
> def f(max=None):
> ...
> while max is None or n <= max:
> ...
> # complicated incrementing of n
>
> So for 'max', technically all I need is <= support. However, the code
> also depends on the fact that after incrementing 'n' enough, it will
> eventually exceed 'max'. Currently, ints, longs, floats, and Decimals
> will all meet this behavior. But I'd rather not specify only those 4
> (e.g. with a typecheck), since someone could relatively easily create
> their own new numeric type with the same behavior. Do you know a better
> way to test for this kind of behavior?
>
> Steve
The problem is more conceptional rather than technical. So what you're saying
is that 3 <= "3.0"
should not be allowed, but 3 <= SomeUserDefinedNumericClass(3) is ok, although
your program knows
nothing a priori about SomeUserDefinedNumericClass. The idea suggested before,
try if "x+1" fails or
not does not get you far; any class that overrides __add__ may fool this test:
class Dummy:
def __add__(self,other):
return 0
Is Dummy 'numeric' ? Probably not. Whether a given instance is "numeric" (or
"sequence",
"file-like", etc. for that matter) is a semantic issue. It cannot be resolved
by relying on which
methods are supported or not, but what these methods *do*; this is something
that no programming
language can tell you now and in the (foreseeable) future.
George
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
