can I overload operators like "=>", "->" or something like that?

[dmitrey]

hi all,
can I somehow overload operators like "=>", "->" or something like
that? (I'm searching for appropriate overload for logical implication
"if a then b")
Thank you in advance, D.

 

[Jacob MacDonald]

hi all,
can I somehow overload operators like "=>", "->" or something like
that? (I'm searching for appropriate overload for logical implication
"if a then b")
Thank you in advance, D.

I don't believe that you could overload those particular operators, since to my knowledge they do not exist in Python to begin with.

 

[alex23]

I don't believe that you could overload those particular operators,
since to my knowledge they do not exist in Python to begin with.

It all depends on if the operators use special methods on objects:
http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#special-method-names

You can overload => via object.__le__, for example.

 

[Jacob MacDonald]

There is no ‘=>’ operator, and no ‘->’ operator, in Python


No, ‘<=’ is the less-than-or-equal operator. There is no ‘=>’operator
in Python.

--
\ “I knew things were changing when my Fraternity Brothers threw |
`\ a guy out of the house for mocking me because I'm gay.” |
_o__) —postsecret.com, 2010-01-19 |
Ben Finney

Thought so.

 

[Nobody]

can I somehow overload operators like "=>", "->" or something like that?
(I'm searching for appropriate overload for logical implication "if a then
b")

You cannot create new operators, but you can control how existing
operators work on types which you define.

IOW, you can't define "->" or "=>", but you could define ">=" or ">>".

 

[Jussi Piitulainen]

You can also "overload" '<-'

Huh. If you're thinking what you just made me think, maybe x -=1> y
could be made to work. Think of --> but Python doesn't have -- ...

I forget whether it is just the Java people or also the Python group
who feel very strongly that the truth values should not really be
ordered and it is something like a bug in the language that they are.

Because <= already works as a material implication for the built-in
True and False to a certain extent: not for general truth values, and
x <= y <= z does not mean x <= (y <= z), and seen as an arrow the
symbol does feel backwards, and probably other such issues.