Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #26956

Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities

Show key headers only | View raw

On 8/12/2012 7:55 AM, Giacomo Alzetta wrote:

> What I mean is: when you implement a new type as a C extension you
> have to provide special methods through the NumberMethods struct. In
> this struct both the power and in-place power operations have three
> arguments.

I am not really sure why the latter is true. Probably 'consistency' at 
the special method level, with __pow__. As Steven points out, it is not 
needed to implement normal Python code.

This is one area of Python where the design is a bit messy. I believe 
the very existence of __ipow__ is a matter of consistency than of known 
use cases. Guido was not sure which __ixxx__ would ever be needed (for 
mutable objects), so he just put them all in.

At the Python level, both __pow__ and __ipow__ are also documented in 
the manual as having an optional, third, modulo parameter. __rpow__ is 
defined as binary, but that is a mistake

 >>> int.__rpow__(3, 5, 4)
1


> Now, suppose I implement the three argument variant of the
> in-place power in a class.

Are you actually planning to do this, or is this purely theoretical?

> No user would be able to call my C
> function with a non-None third argument,

Not true. Whether the function is coded in Python or C
cls.__ipow__(base, exp, mod) # or
base.__ipow__(exp, mod)

> while he would be able to
> call the normal version with the third argument.

That can also be done directly
 >>> int.__pow__(5, 3,  4)
1

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

in-place exponentiation incongruities Giacomo Alzetta <giacomo.alzetta@gmail.com> - 2012-08-11 09:54 -0700
  Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-08-12 04:28 +0000
    Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Giacomo Alzetta <giacomo.alzetta@gmail.com> - 2012-08-12 00:14 -0700
      Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-08-12 11:03 +0000
        Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Giacomo Alzetta <giacomo.alzetta@gmail.com> - 2012-08-12 04:55 -0700
          Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-08-12 17:53 -0400
            Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Giacomo Alzetta <giacomo.alzetta@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 00:14 -0700
            Re: in-place exponentiation incongruities Giacomo Alzetta <giacomo.alzetta@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 00:14 -0700

csiph-web