Lines Matching refs:interest
61 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',
