cpython/Lib/test/output/test_class

test_class
__init__: ()
__add__: (1,)
__radd__: (1,)
__sub__: (1,)
__rsub__: (1,)
__mul__: (1,)
__rmul__: (1,)
__truediv__: (1,)
__rtruediv__: (1,)
__mod__: (1,)
__rmod__: (1,)
__divmod__: (1,)
__rdivmod__: (1,)
__pow__: (1,)
__rpow__: (1,)
__rshift__: (1,)
__rrshift__: (1,)
__lshift__: (1,)
__rlshift__: (1,)
__and__: (1,)
__rand__: (1,)
__or__: (1,)
__ror__: (1,)
__xor__: (1,)
__rxor__: (1,)
__contains__: (1,)
__getitem__: (1,)
__setitem__: (1, 1)
__delitem__: (1,)
__getslice__: (0, 42)
__setslice__: (0, 42, 'The Answer')
__delslice__: (0, 42)
__getitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10),)
__setitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10), 'A lot')
__delitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10),)
__getitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100),)
__setitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100), 'Strange')
__delitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100),)
__getitem__: (slice(None, 42, None),)
__setitem__: (slice(None, 42, None), 'The Answer')
__delitem__: (slice(None, 42, None),)
__neg__: ()
__pos__: ()
__abs__: ()
__int__: ()
__long__: ()
__float__: ()
__oct__: ()
__hex__: ()
__hash__: ()
__repr__: ()
__str__: ()
__eq__: (1,)
__lt__: (1,)
__gt__: (1,)
__ne__: (1,)
__eq__: (1,)
__gt__: (1,)
__lt__: (1,)
__ne__: (1,)
__del__: ()
__getattr__: ('spam',)
__setattr__: ('eggs', 'spam, spam, spam and ham')
__delattr__: ('cardinal',)
Apply SF patch #101029: call __getitem__ with a proper slice object if there is no __getslice__ available. Also does the same for C extension types. Includes rudimentary documentation (it could use a cross reference to the section on slice objects, I couldn't figure out how to do that) and a test suite for all Python __hooks__ I could think of, including the new behaviour. 2000-08-17 19:37:32 -03:00			`test_class`
			`__init__: ()`
			`__add__: (1,)`
			`__radd__: (1,)`
			`__sub__: (1,)`
			`__rsub__: (1,)`
			`__mul__: (1,)`
			`__rmul__: (1,)`
Fix the expected output file; new classes just behave differently... (There are some other problems with test_class.py that aren't as easily fixed. :-( ) 2006-04-17 20:38:13 -03:00			`__truediv__: (1,)`
			`__rtruediv__: (1,)`
Apply SF patch #101029: call __getitem__ with a proper slice object if there is no __getslice__ available. Also does the same for C extension types. Includes rudimentary documentation (it could use a cross reference to the section on slice objects, I couldn't figure out how to do that) and a test suite for all Python __hooks__ I could think of, including the new behaviour. 2000-08-17 19:37:32 -03:00			`__mod__: (1,)`
			`__rmod__: (1,)`
			`__divmod__: (1,)`
			`__rdivmod__: (1,)`
			`__pow__: (1,)`
			`__rpow__: (1,)`
			`__rshift__: (1,)`
			`__rrshift__: (1,)`
			`__lshift__: (1,)`
			`__rlshift__: (1,)`
			`__and__: (1,)`
			`__rand__: (1,)`
			`__or__: (1,)`
			`__ror__: (1,)`
			`__xor__: (1,)`
			`__rxor__: (1,)`
			`__contains__: (1,)`
			`__getitem__: (1,)`
			`__setitem__: (1, 1)`
			`__delitem__: (1,)`
			`__getslice__: (0, 42)`
			`__setslice__: (0, 42, 'The Answer')`
			`__delslice__: (0, 42)`
			`__getitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10),)`
			`__setitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10), 'A lot')`
			`__delitem__: (slice(2, 1024, 10),)`
			`__getitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100),)`
			`__setitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100), 'Strange')`
			`__delitem__: ((slice(None, 42, None), Ellipsis, slice(None, 24, None), 24, 100),)`
Fix the expected output file; new classes just behave differently... (There are some other problems with test_class.py that aren't as easily fixed. :-( ) 2006-04-17 20:38:13 -03:00			`__getitem__: (slice(None, 42, None),)`
			`__setitem__: (slice(None, 42, None), 'The Answer')`
			`__delitem__: (slice(None, 42, None),)`
Apply SF patch #101029: call __getitem__ with a proper slice object if there is no __getslice__ available. Also does the same for C extension types. Includes rudimentary documentation (it could use a cross reference to the section on slice objects, I couldn't figure out how to do that) and a test suite for all Python __hooks__ I could think of, including the new behaviour. 2000-08-17 19:37:32 -03:00			`__neg__: ()`
			`__pos__: ()`
			`__abs__: ()`
			`__int__: ()`
			`__long__: ()`
			`__float__: ()`
			`__oct__: ()`
			`__hex__: ()`
			`__hash__: ()`
			`__repr__: ()`
			`__str__: ()`
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default ordering between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off... 2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00			`__eq__: (1,)`
			`__lt__: (1,)`
			`__gt__: (1,)`
			`__ne__: (1,)`
			`__eq__: (1,)`
			`__gt__: (1,)`
			`__lt__: (1,)`
			`__ne__: (1,)`
Apply SF patch #101029: call __getitem__ with a proper slice object if there is no __getslice__ available. Also does the same for C extension types. Includes rudimentary documentation (it could use a cross reference to the section on slice objects, I couldn't figure out how to do that) and a test suite for all Python __hooks__ I could think of, including the new behaviour. 2000-08-17 19:37:32 -03:00			`__del__: ()`
			`__getattr__: ('spam',)`
			`__setattr__: ('eggs', 'spam, spam, spam and ham')`
			`__delattr__: ('cardinal',)`