459 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
459 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
PEP: 207
|
||
Title: Rich Comparisions
|
||
Version: $Revision$
|
||
Author: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum), DavidA@ActiveState.com (David Ascher)
|
||
Python-Version: 2.1
|
||
Status: Final
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
This PEP proposes several new features for comparisons:
|
||
|
||
- Allow separately overloading of <, >, <=, >=, ==, !=, both in
|
||
classes and in C extensions.
|
||
|
||
- Allow any of those overloaded operators to return something else
|
||
besides a Boolean result.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
|
||
The main motivation comes from NumPy, whose users agree that A<B
|
||
should return an array of elementwise comparison outcomes; they
|
||
currently have to spell this as less(A,B) because A<B can only
|
||
return a Boolean result or raise an exception.
|
||
|
||
An additional motivation is that frequently, types don't have a
|
||
natural ordering, but still need to be compared for equality.
|
||
Currently such a type *must* implement comparison and thus define
|
||
an arbitrary ordering, just so that equality can be tested.
|
||
|
||
Also, for some object types an equality test can be implemented
|
||
much more efficiently than an ordering test; for example, lists
|
||
and dictionaries that differ in length are unequal, but the
|
||
ordering requires inspecting some (potentially all) items.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Previous Work
|
||
|
||
Rich Comparisons have been proposed before; in particular by David
|
||
Ascher, after experience with Numerical Python:
|
||
|
||
http://starship.python.net/crew/da/proposals/richcmp.html
|
||
|
||
It is also included below as an Appendix. Most of the material in
|
||
this PEP is derived from David's proposal.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Concerns
|
||
|
||
1 Backwards compatibility, both at the Python level (classes using
|
||
__cmp__ need not be changed) and at the C level (extensions
|
||
defining tp_compare need not be changed, code using
|
||
PyObject_Compare() must work even if the compared objects use
|
||
the new rich comparison scheme).
|
||
|
||
2 When A<B returns a matrix of elementwise comparisons, an easy
|
||
mistake to make is to use this expression in a Boolean context.
|
||
Without special precautions, it would always be true. This use
|
||
should raise an exception instead.
|
||
|
||
3 If a class overrides x==y but nothing else, should x!=y be
|
||
computed as not(x==y), or fail? What about the similar
|
||
relationship between < and >=, or between > and <=?
|
||
|
||
4 Similarly, should we allow x<y to be calculated from y>x? And
|
||
x<=y from not(x>y)? And x==y from y==x, or x!=y from y!=x?
|
||
|
||
5 When comparison operators return elementwise comparisons, what
|
||
to do about shortcut operators like A<B<C, ``A<B and C<D'',
|
||
``A<B or C<D''?
|
||
|
||
6 What to do about min() and max(), the 'in' and 'not in'
|
||
operators, list.sort(), dictionary key comparison, and other
|
||
uses of comparisons by built-in operations?
|
||
|
||
|
||
Proposed Resolutions
|
||
|
||
1 Full backwards compatibility can be achieved as follows. When
|
||
an object defines tp_compare() but not tp_richcompare(), and a
|
||
rich comparison is requested, the outcome of tp_compare() is
|
||
used in the ovious way. E.g. if "<" is requested, an exception if
|
||
tp_compare() raises an exception, the outcome is 1 if
|
||
tp_compare() is negative, and 0 if it is zero or positive. Etc.
|
||
|
||
Full forward compatibility can be achieved as follows. When a
|
||
classic comparison is requested on an object that implements
|
||
tp_richcompare(), up to three comparisons are used: first == is
|
||
tried, and if it returns true, 0 is returned; next, < is tried
|
||
and if it returns true, -1 is returned; next, > is tried and if
|
||
it returns true, +1 is returned. If any operator tried returns
|
||
a non-Boolean value (see below), the exception raised by
|
||
conversion to Boolean is passed through. If none of the
|
||
operators tried returns true, the classic comparison fallbacks
|
||
are tried next.
|
||
|
||
(I thought long and hard about the order in which the three
|
||
comparisons should be tried. At one point I had a convincing
|
||
argument for doing it in this order, based on the behavior of
|
||
comparisons for cyclical data structures. But since that code
|
||
has changed again, I'm not so sure that it makes a difference
|
||
any more.)
|
||
|
||
2 Any type that returns a collection of Booleans instead of a
|
||
single boolean should define nb_nonzero() to raise an exception.
|
||
Such a type is considered a non-Boolean.
|
||
|
||
3 The == and != operators are not assumed to be each other's
|
||
complement (e.g. IEEE 754 floating point numbers do not satisfy
|
||
this). It is up to the type to implement this if desired.
|
||
Similar for < and >=, or > and <=; there are lots of examples
|
||
where these assumptions aren't true (e.g. tabnanny).
|
||
|
||
4 The reflexivity rules *are* assumed by Python. Thus, the
|
||
interpreter may swap y>x with x<y, y>=x with x<=y, and may swap
|
||
the arguments of x==y and x!=y. (Note: Python currently assumes
|
||
that x==x is always true and x!=x is never true; this should not
|
||
be assumed.)
|
||
|
||
5 In the current proposal, when A<B returns an array of
|
||
elementwise comparisons, this outcome is considered non-Boolean,
|
||
and its interpretation as Boolean by the shortcut operators
|
||
raises an exception. David Ascher's proposal tries to deal
|
||
with this; I don't think this is worth the additional complexity
|
||
in the code generator. Instead of A<B<C, you can write
|
||
(A<B)&(C<D).
|
||
|
||
6 The min() and list.sort() operations will only use the
|
||
< operator; max() will only use the > operator. The 'in' and
|
||
'not in' operators and dictionary lookup will only use the ==
|
||
operator.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Implementation Proposal
|
||
|
||
This closely follows David Ascher's proposal.
|
||
|
||
C API
|
||
|
||
- New functions:
|
||
|
||
PyObject *PyObject_RichCompare(PyObject *, PyObject *, enum cmp_op)
|
||
|
||
This performs the requested rich comparison, returning a Python
|
||
object or raising an exception. The 3rd argument must be one of
|
||
Py_LT, Py_LE, Py_EQ, Py_NE, Py_GT or Py_GE.
|
||
|
||
int PyObject_RichCompareBool(PyObject *, PyObject *, enum cmp_op)
|
||
|
||
This performs the requested rich comparison, returning a
|
||
Boolean: -1 for exception, 0 for false, 1 for true. The 3rd
|
||
argument must be one of Py_LT, Py_LE, Py_EQ, Py_NE, Py_GT or
|
||
Py_GE. Note that when PyObject_RichCompare() returns a
|
||
non-Boolean object, PyObject_RichCompareBool() will raise an
|
||
exception.
|
||
|
||
- New typedef:
|
||
|
||
typedef PyObject *(*richcmpfunc) (PyObject *, PyObject *, int);
|
||
|
||
- New slot in type object, replacing spare tp_xxx7:
|
||
|
||
richcmpfunc tp_richcompare;
|
||
|
||
This should be a function with the same signature as
|
||
PyObject_RichCompare(), and performing the same comparison.
|
||
At least one of the arguments is of the type whose
|
||
tp_richcompare slot is being used, but the other may have a
|
||
different type. If the function cannot compare the particular
|
||
combination of objects, it should return PyExc_NotImplemented.
|
||
|
||
- PyObject_Compare() is changed to try rich comparisons if they
|
||
are defined (but only if classic comparisons aren't defined).
|
||
|
||
Changes to the interpreter
|
||
|
||
- Whenever PyObject_Compare() is called with the intent of getting
|
||
the outcome of a particular comparison (e.g. in list.sort(), and
|
||
of course for the comparison operators in ceval.c), the code is
|
||
changed to call PyObject_RichCompare() or
|
||
PyObject_RichCompareBool() instead; if the C code needs to know
|
||
the outcome of the comparison, PyObject_IsTrue() is called on
|
||
the result (which may raise an exception).
|
||
|
||
- Most built-in types that currently define a comparison will be
|
||
modified to define a rich comparison instead. (This is
|
||
optional; I've converted lists, tuples, complex numbers, and
|
||
arrays so far, and am not sure whether I will convert others.)
|
||
|
||
Classes
|
||
|
||
- Classes can define new special methods __lt__, __le__, __eq__,
|
||
__ne__,__gt__, __ge__ to override the corresponding operators.
|
||
(I.e., <, <=, ==, !=, >, >=. You gotta love the Fortran
|
||
heritage.) If a class defines __cmp__ as well, it is only used
|
||
when __lt__ etc. have been tried and return NotImplemented.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Copyright
|
||
|
||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Appendix
|
||
|
||
Here is most of David Ascher's original proposal (version 0.2.1,
|
||
dated Wed Jul 22 16:49:28 1998; I've left the Contents, History
|
||
and Patches sections out). It addresses almost all concerns
|
||
above.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
A new mechanism allowing comparisons of Python objects to return
|
||
values other than -1, 0, or 1 (or raise exceptions) is
|
||
proposed. This mechanism is entirely backwards compatible, and can
|
||
be controlled at the level of the C PyObject type or of the Python
|
||
class definition. There are three cooperating parts to the
|
||
proposed mechanism:
|
||
|
||
- the use of the last slot in the type object structure to store a
|
||
pointer to a rich comparison function
|
||
|
||
- the addition of special methods for classes
|
||
|
||
- the addition of an optional argument to the builtin cmp()
|
||
function.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
|
||
The current comparison protocol for Python objects assumes that
|
||
any two Python objects can be compared (as of Python 1.5, object
|
||
comparisons can raise exceptions), and that the return value for
|
||
any comparison should be -1, 0 or 1. -1 indicates that the first
|
||
argument to the comparison function is less than the right one, +1
|
||
indicating the contrapositive, and 0 indicating that the two
|
||
objects are equal. While this mechanism allows the establishment
|
||
of a order relationship (e.g. for use by the sort() method of list
|
||
objects), it has proven to be limited in the context of Numeric
|
||
Python (NumPy).
|
||
|
||
Specifically, NumPy allows the creation of multidimensional
|
||
arrays, which support most of the numeric operators. Thus:
|
||
|
||
x = array((1,2,3,4)) y = array((2,2,4,4))
|
||
|
||
are two NumPy arrays. While they can be added elementwise,:
|
||
|
||
z = x + y # z == array((3,4,7,8))
|
||
|
||
they cannot be compared in the current framework - the released
|
||
version of NumPy compares the pointers, (thus yielding junk
|
||
information) which was the only solution before the recent
|
||
addition of the ability (in 1.5) to raise exceptions in comparison
|
||
functions.
|
||
|
||
Even with the ability to raise exceptions, the current protocol
|
||
makes array comparisons useless. To deal with this fact, NumPy
|
||
includes several functions which perform the comparisons: less(),
|
||
less_equal(), greater(), greater_equal(), equal(),
|
||
not_equal(). These functions return arrays with the same shape as
|
||
their arguments (modulo broadcasting), filled with 0's and 1's
|
||
depending on whether the comparison is true or not for each
|
||
element pair. Thus, for example, using the arrays x and y defined
|
||
above:
|
||
|
||
less(x,y)
|
||
|
||
would be an array containing the numbers (1,0,0,0).
|
||
|
||
The current proposal is to modify the Python object interface to
|
||
allow the NumPy package to make it so that x < y returns the same
|
||
thing as less(x,y). The exact return value is up to the NumPy
|
||
package -- what this proposal really asks for is changing the
|
||
Python core so that extension objects have the ability to return
|
||
something other than -1, 0, 1, should their authors choose to do
|
||
so.
|
||
|
||
Current State of Affairs
|
||
|
||
The current protocol is, at the C level, that each object type
|
||
defines a tp_compare slot, which is a pointer to a function which
|
||
takes two PyObject* references and returns -1, 0, or 1. This
|
||
function is called by the PyObject_Compare() function defined in
|
||
the C API. PyObject_Compare() is also called by the builtin
|
||
function cmp() which takes two arguments.
|
||
|
||
Proposed Mechanism
|
||
|
||
1. Changes to the C structure for type objects
|
||
|
||
The last available slot in the PyTypeObject, reserved up to now
|
||
for future expansion, is used to optionally store a pointer to a
|
||
new comparison function, of type richcmpfunc defined by:
|
||
|
||
typedef PyObject *(*richcmpfunc)
|
||
Py_PROTO((PyObject *, PyObject *, int));
|
||
|
||
This function takes three arguments. The first two are the objects
|
||
to be compared, and the third is an integer corresponding to an
|
||
opcode (one of LT, LE, EQ, NE, GT, GE). If this slot is left NULL,
|
||
then rich comparison for that object type is not supported (except
|
||
for class instances whose class provide the special methods
|
||
described below).
|
||
|
||
The above opcodes need to be added to the published Python/C API
|
||
(probably under the names Py_LT, Py_LE, etc.)
|
||
|
||
2. Additions of special methods for classes
|
||
|
||
Classes wishing to support the rich comparison mechanisms must add
|
||
one or more of the following new special methods:
|
||
|
||
def __lt__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
def __le__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
def __gt__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
def __ge__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
def __eq__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
def __ne__(self, other):
|
||
...
|
||
|
||
Each of these is called when the class instance is the on the
|
||
left-hand-side of the corresponding operators (<, <=, >, >=, ==,
|
||
and != or <>). The argument other is set to the object on the
|
||
right side of the operator. The return value of these methods is
|
||
up to the class implementor (after all, that's the entire point of
|
||
the proposal).
|
||
|
||
If the object on the left side of the operator does not define an
|
||
appropriate rich comparison operator (either at the C level or
|
||
with one of the special methods, then the comparison is reversed,
|
||
and the right hand operator is called with the opposite operator,
|
||
and the two objects are swapped. This assumes that a < b and b > a
|
||
are equivalent, as are a <= b and b >= a, and that == and != are
|
||
commutative (e.g. a == b if and only if b == a).
|
||
|
||
For example, if obj1 is an object which supports the rich
|
||
comparison protocol and x and y are objects which do not support
|
||
the rich comparison protocol, then obj1 < x will call the __lt__
|
||
method of obj1 with x as the second argument. x < obj1 will call
|
||
obj1's __gt__ method with x as a second argument, and x < y will
|
||
just use the existing (non-rich) comparison mechanism.
|
||
|
||
The above mechanism is such that classes can get away with not
|
||
implementing either __lt__ and __le__ or __gt__ and
|
||
__ge__. Further smarts could have been added to the comparison
|
||
mechanism, but this limited set of allowed "swaps" was chosen
|
||
because it doesn't require the infrastructure to do any processing
|
||
(negation) of return values. The choice of six special methods was
|
||
made over a single (e.g. __richcmp__) method to allow the
|
||
dispatching on the opcode to be performed at the level of the C
|
||
implementation rather than the user-defined method.
|
||
|
||
3. Addition of an optional argument to the builtin cmp()
|
||
|
||
The builtin cmp() is still used for simple comparisons. For rich
|
||
comparisons, it is called with a third argument, one of "<", "<=",
|
||
">", ">=", "==", "!=", "<>" (the last two have the same
|
||
meaning). When called with one of these strings as the third
|
||
argument, cmp() can return any Python object. Otherwise, it can
|
||
only return -1, 0 or 1 as before.
|
||
|
||
Chained Comparisons
|
||
|
||
Problem
|
||
|
||
It would be nice to allow objects for which the comparison returns
|
||
something other than -1, 0, or 1 to be used in chained
|
||
comparisons, such as:
|
||
|
||
x < y < z
|
||
|
||
Currently, this is interpreted by Python as:
|
||
|
||
temp1 = x < y
|
||
if temp1:
|
||
return y < z
|
||
else:
|
||
return temp1
|
||
|
||
Note that this requires testing the truth value of the result of
|
||
comparisons, with potential "shortcutting" of the right-side
|
||
comparison testings. In other words, the truth-value of the result
|
||
of the result of the comparison determines the result of a chained
|
||
operation. This is problematic in the case of arrays, since if x,
|
||
y and z are three arrays, then the user expects:
|
||
|
||
x < y < z
|
||
|
||
to be an array of 0's and 1's where 1's are in the locations
|
||
corresponding to the elements of y which are between the
|
||
corresponding elements in x and z. In other words, the right-hand
|
||
side must be evaluated regardless of the result of x < y, which is
|
||
incompatible with the mechanism currently in use by the parser.
|
||
|
||
Solution
|
||
|
||
Guido mentioned that one possible way out would be to change the
|
||
code generated by chained comparisons to allow arrays to be
|
||
chained-compared intelligently. What follows is a mixture of his
|
||
idea and my suggestions. The code generated for x < y < z would be
|
||
equivalent to:
|
||
|
||
temp1 = x < y
|
||
if temp1:
|
||
temp2 = y < z
|
||
return boolean_combine(temp1, temp2)
|
||
else:
|
||
return temp1
|
||
|
||
where boolean_combine is a new function which does something like
|
||
the following:
|
||
|
||
def boolean_combine(a, b):
|
||
if hasattr(a, '__boolean_and__') or \
|
||
hasattr(b, '__boolean_and__'):
|
||
try:
|
||
return a.__boolean_and__(b)
|
||
except:
|
||
return b.__boolean_and__(a)
|
||
else: # standard behavior
|
||
if a:
|
||
return b
|
||
else:
|
||
return 0
|
||
|
||
where the __boolean_and__ special method is implemented for
|
||
C-level types by another value of the third argument to the
|
||
richcmp function. This method would perform a boolean comparison
|
||
of the arrays (currently implemented in the umath module as the
|
||
logical_and ufunc).
|
||
|
||
Thus, objects returned by rich comparisons should always test
|
||
true, but should define another special method which creates
|
||
boolean combinations of them and their argument.
|
||
|
||
This solution has the advantage of allowing chained comparisons to
|
||
work for arrays, but the disadvantage that it requires comparison
|
||
arrays to always return true (in an ideal world, I'd have them
|
||
always raise an exception on truth testing, since the meaning of
|
||
testing "if a>b:" is massively ambiguous.
|
||
|
||
The inlining already present which deals with integer comparisons
|
||
would still apply, resulting in no performance cost for the most
|
||
common cases.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Local Variables:
|
||
mode: indented-text
|
||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||
End:
|