On Jan 13, 5:51 am, Richard Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 13, 8:59 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:23:52 -0800, Richard Szopa wrote: > > > However, I am very surprised to learn that > > > > super_object.__getattr__(name)(*args, **kwargs) > > > > getattr(super_object, name)(*args, **kwargs) > > > > are not equivalent. This is quite odd, at least when with len() > > > and .__len__, str() and .__str__. Do you maybe know what's the > > > rationale behind not following that convention by getattr? > > > I think you are confusing `__getattr__` and `__getattribute__` here! > > `getattr()` maps to `__getattr__()`, it's `__getattribute__` that's > > different. > > Well, in my code calling super_object.__getattr__(name)(*args, > **kwargs) and getattr(super_object, name)(*args, **kwargs) gives > *different* effects (namely, the latter works, while the former > doesn't). That kinda suggests that they don't map to each other :-). > And that makes me feel confused.
Don't think of them as mappings. Think of them as a way for a class to hook into getattr's protocol, conveniently named similar to getattr (__getattr__ and __getattribute__). getattr() may call several methods, no methods at all, change the arguments, etc. Although len() may seem simple, many others are not so simple. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
