Lines Matching refs:sometimes
15 'booleans': '\nBoolean operations\n******************\n\n or_test ::= and_test | or_test "or" and_test\n and_test ::= not_test | and_test "and" not_test\n not_test ::= comparison | "not" not_test\n\nIn the context of Boolean operations, and also when expressions are\nused by control flow statements, the following values are interpreted\nas false: ``False``, ``None``, numeric zero of all types, and empty\nstrings and containers (including strings, tuples, lists,\ndictionaries, sets and frozensets). All other values are interpreted\nas true. (See the ``__nonzero__()`` special method for a way to\nchange this.)\n\nThe operator ``not`` yields ``True`` if its argument is false,\n``False`` otherwise.\n\nThe expression ``x and y`` first evaluates *x*; if *x* is false, its\nvalue is returned; otherwise, *y* is evaluated and the resulting value\nis returned.\n\nThe expression ``x or y`` first evaluates *x*; if *x* is true, its\nvalue is returned; otherwise, *y* is evaluated and the resulting value\nis returned.\n\n(Note that neither ``and`` nor ``or`` restrict the value and type they\nreturn to ``False`` and ``True``, but rather return the last evaluated\nargument. This is sometimes useful, e.g., if ``s`` is a string that\nshould be replaced by a default value if it is empty, the expression\n``s or \'foo\'`` yields the desired value. Because ``not`` has to\ninvent a value anyway, it does not bother to return a value of the\nsame type as its argument, so e.g., ``not \'foo\'`` yields ``False``,\nnot ``\'\'``.)\n',
50 sometimes, if the implementation\n of the other type cannot be changed, it is useful to do the\n conversion to the other type here). A return value of\n ``NotImplemented`` is equivalent to returning ``None``.\n',
61 sometimessometimes referred to as \'metaclass confusion\', and is avoided\nby bypassing the instance when looking up special methods:\n\n >>> type(1).__hash__(1) == hash(1)\n True\n >>> type(int).__hash__(int) == hash(int)\n True\n\nIn addition to bypassing any instance attributes in the interest of\ncorrectness, implicit special method lookup generally also bypasses\nthe ``__getattribute__()`` method even of the object\'s metaclass:\n\n >>> class Meta(type):\n ... def __getattribute__(*args):\n ... print "Metaclass getattribute invoked"\n ... return type.__getattribute__(*args)\n ...\n >>> class C(object):\n ... __metaclass__ = Meta\n ... def __len__(self):\n ... return 10\n ... def __getattribute__(*args):\n ... print "Class getattribute invoked"\n ... return object.__getattribute__(*args)\n ...\n >>> c = C()\n >>> c.__len__() # Explicit lookup via instance\n Class getattribute invoked\n 10\n >>> type(c).__len__(c) # Explicit lookup via type\n Metaclass getattribute invoked\n 10\n >>> len(c) # Implicit lookup\n 10\n\nBypassing the ``__getattribute__()`` machinery in this fashion\nprovides significant scope for speed optimisations within the\ninterpreter, at the cost of some flexibility in the handling of\nspecial methods (the special method *must* be set on the class object\nitself in order to be consistently invoked by the interpreter).\n\n-[ Footnotes ]-\n\n[1] It *is* possible in some cases to change an object\'s type, under\n certain controlled conditions. It generally isn\'t a good idea\n though, since it can lead to some very strange behaviour if it is\n handled incorrectly.\n\n[2] For operands of the same type, it is assumed that if the non-\n reflected method (such as ``__add__()``) fails the operation is\n not supported, which is why the reflected method is not called.\n',
