Programming Forums - View Single Post

Arevos · Jun 3rd, 2006, 6:06 AM

This seems an odd request - would it not be more readable to refer to the index by obj.index instead of obj()?

Regardless, if I'm understanding you right, you can get the functionality you want by subclassing the int type:

(Toggle Plain Text)

class keep_index(int):
    def __new__(cls, value, index):
        obj = int.__new__(cls, value)
        obj.index = index
        return obj
    def __call__(self):
        return self.index

The int type appears to use __new__ for setup, rather than __init__, which is why I had to override __new__ in order to get it to accept two parameters.

Jun 3rd, 2006, 6:06 AM	#3
Arevos Programming Guru Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 1,499 Rep Power: 5	This seems an odd request - would it not be more readable to refer to the index by obj.index instead of obj()? Regardless, if I'm understanding you right, you can get the functionality you want by subclassing the int type: (Toggle Plain Text) class keep_index(int): def __new__(cls, value, index): obj = int.__new__(cls, value) obj.index = index return obj def __call__(self): return self.index class keep_index(int): def __new__(cls, value, index): obj = int.__new__(cls, value) obj.index = index return obj def __call__(self): return self.index The int type appears to use __new__ for setup, rather than __init__, which is why I had to override __new__ in order to get it to accept two parameters.