12 KiB
Binary operations on instances
Binary operations in Python are implemented by means of magic double-underscore methods.
For references, see:
- https://snarky.ca/unravelling-binary-arithmetic-operations-in-python/
- https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#emulating-numeric-types
Operations
We support inference for all Python's binary operators: +, -, *, @, /, //, %, **,
<<, >>, &, ^, and |.
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __sub__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __mul__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __matmul__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __truediv__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __floordiv__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __mod__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __pow__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __lshift__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rshift__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __and__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __xor__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __or__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
class B: ...
reveal_type(A() + B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() - B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() * B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() @ B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() / B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() // B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() % B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() ** B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() << B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() >> B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() & B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() ^ B()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() | B()) # revealed: A
Reflected
We also support inference for reflected operations:
class A:
def __radd__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rsub__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rmul__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rmatmul__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rtruediv__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rfloordiv__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rmod__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rpow__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rlshift__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rrshift__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rand__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __rxor__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __ror__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
class B: ...
reveal_type(B() + A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() - A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() * A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() @ A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() / A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() // A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() % A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() ** A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() << A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() >> A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() & A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() ^ A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(B() | A()) # revealed: A
Returning a different type
The magic methods aren't required to return the type of self:
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> int:
return 1
def __rsub__(self, other) -> int:
return 1
class B: ...
reveal_type(A() + B()) # revealed: int
reveal_type(B() - A()) # revealed: int
Non-reflected precedence in general
In general, if the left-hand side defines __add__ and the right-hand side defines __radd__ and
the right-hand side is not a subtype of the left-hand side, lhs.__add__ will take precedence:
class A:
def __add__(self, other: "B") -> int:
return 42
class B:
def __radd__(self, other: "A") -> str:
return "foo"
reveal_type(A() + B()) # revealed: int
# Edge case: C is a subtype of C, *but* if the two sides are of *equal* types,
# the lhs *still* takes precedence
class C:
def __add__(self, other: "C") -> int:
return 42
def __radd__(self, other: "C") -> str:
return "foo"
reveal_type(C() + C()) # revealed: int
Reflected precedence for subtypes (in some cases)
If the right-hand operand is a subtype of the left-hand operand and has a different implementation of the reflected method, the reflected method on the right-hand operand takes precedence.
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> str:
return "foo"
def __radd__(self, other) -> str:
return "foo"
class MyString(str): ...
class B(A):
def __radd__(self, other) -> MyString:
return MyString()
reveal_type(A() + B()) # revealed: MyString
# N.B. Still a subtype of `A`, even though `A` does not appear directly in the class's `__bases__`
class C(B): ...
reveal_type(A() + C()) # revealed: MyString
Reflected precedence 2
If the right-hand operand is a subtype of the left-hand operand, but does not override the reflected method, the left-hand operand's non-reflected method still takes precedence:
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> str:
return "foo"
def __radd__(self, other) -> int:
return 42
class B(A): ...
reveal_type(A() + B()) # revealed: str
Only reflected supported
For example, at runtime, (1).__add__(1.2) is NotImplemented, but (1.2).__radd__(1) == 2.2,
meaning that 1 + 1.2 succeeds at runtime (producing 2.2). The runtime tries the second one only
if the first one returns NotImplemented to signal failure.
Typeshed and other stubs annotate dunder-method calls that would return NotImplemented as being
"illegal" calls. int.__add__ is annotated as only "accepting" ints, even though it
strictly-speaking "accepts" any other object without raising an exception -- it will simply return
NotImplemented, allowing the runtime to try the __radd__ method of the right-hand operand as
well.
class A:
def __sub__(self, other: "A") -> "A":
return A()
class B:
def __rsub__(self, other: A) -> "B":
return B()
reveal_type(A() - B()) # revealed: B
Callable instances as dunders
Believe it or not, this is supported at runtime:
class A:
def __call__(self, other) -> int:
return 42
class B:
__add__ = A()
reveal_type(B() + B()) # revealed: Unknown | int
Note that we union with Unknown here because __add__ is not declared. We do infer just int if
the callable is declared:
class B2:
__add__: A = A()
reveal_type(B2() + B2()) # revealed: int
Integration test: numbers from typeshed
We get less precise results from binary operations on float/complex literals due to the special case
for annotations of float or complex, which applies also to return annotations for typeshed
dunder methods. Perhaps we could have a special-case on the special-case, to exclude these typeshed
return annotations from the widening, and preserve a bit more precision here?
reveal_type(3j + 3.14) # revealed: int | float | complex
reveal_type(4.2 + 42) # revealed: int | float
reveal_type(3j + 3) # revealed: int | float | complex
reveal_type(3.14 + 3j) # revealed: int | float | complex
reveal_type(42 + 4.2) # revealed: int | float
reveal_type(3 + 3j) # revealed: int | float | complex
def _(x: bool, y: int):
reveal_type(x + y) # revealed: int
reveal_type(4.2 + x) # revealed: int | float
reveal_type(y + 4.12) # revealed: int | float
With literal types
When we have a literal type for one operand, we're able to fall back to the instance handling for its instance super-type.
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
def __radd__(self, other) -> "A":
return self
reveal_type(A() + 1) # revealed: A
reveal_type(1 + A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() + "foo") # revealed: A
reveal_type("foo" + A()) # revealed: A
reveal_type(A() + b"foo") # revealed: A
# TODO should be `A` since `bytes.__add__` doesn't support `A` instances
reveal_type(b"foo" + A()) # revealed: bytes
reveal_type(A() + ()) # revealed: A
# TODO this should be `A`, since `tuple.__add__` doesn't support `A` instances
reveal_type(() + A()) # revealed: @Todo(full tuple[...] support)
literal_string_instance = "foo" * 1_000_000_000
# the test is not testing what it's meant to be testing if this isn't a `LiteralString`:
reveal_type(literal_string_instance) # revealed: LiteralString
reveal_type(A() + literal_string_instance) # revealed: A
reveal_type(literal_string_instance + A()) # revealed: A
Operations involving instances of classes inheriting from Any
Any and Unknown represent a set of possible runtime objects, wherein the bounds of the set are
unknown. Whether the left-hand operand's dunder or the right-hand operand's reflected dunder depends
on whether the right-hand operand is an instance of a class that is a subclass of the left-hand
operand's class and overrides the reflected dunder. In the following example, because of the
unknowable nature of Any/Unknown, we must consider both possibilities: Any/Unknown might
resolve to an unknown third class that inherits from X and overrides __radd__; but it also might
not. Thus, the correct answer here for the reveal_type is int | Unknown.
from does_not_exist import Foo # error: [unresolved-import]
reveal_type(Foo) # revealed: Unknown
class X:
def __add__(self, other: object) -> int:
return 42
class Y(Foo): ...
# TODO: Should be `int | Unknown`; see above discussion.
reveal_type(X() + Y()) # revealed: int
Operations involving types with invalid __bool__ methods
class NotBoolable:
__bool__: int = 3
a = NotBoolable()
# error: [unsupported-bool-conversion]
10 and a and True
Operations on class objects
When operating on class objects, the corresponding dunder methods are looked up on the metaclass.
from __future__ import annotations
class Meta(type):
def __add__(self, other: Meta) -> int:
return 1
def __lt__(self, other: Meta) -> bool:
return True
def __getitem__(self, key: int) -> str:
return "a"
class A(metaclass=Meta): ...
class B(metaclass=Meta): ...
reveal_type(A + B) # revealed: int
# error: [unsupported-operator] "Operator `-` is unsupported between objects of type `Literal[A]` and `Literal[B]`"
reveal_type(A - B) # revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(A < B) # revealed: bool
reveal_type(A > B) # revealed: bool
# error: [unsupported-operator] "Operator `<=` is not supported for types `Literal[A]` and `Literal[B]`"
reveal_type(A <= B) # revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(A[0]) # revealed: str
Unsupported
Dunder as instance attribute
The magic method must exist on the class, not just on the instance:
def add_impl(self, other) -> int:
return 1
class A:
def __init__(self):
self.__add__ = add_impl
# error: [unsupported-operator] "Operator `+` is unsupported between objects of type `A` and `A`"
# revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(A() + A())
Missing dunder
class A: ...
# error: [unsupported-operator]
# revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(A() + A())
Wrong position
A left-hand dunder method doesn't apply for the right-hand operand, or vice versa:
class A:
def __add__(self, other) -> int:
return 1
class B:
def __radd__(self, other) -> int:
return 1
class C: ...
# error: [unsupported-operator]
# revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(C() + A())
# error: [unsupported-operator]
# revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(B() + C())
Reflected dunder is not tried between two objects of the same type
For the specific case where the left-hand operand is the exact same type as the right-hand operand, the reflected dunder of the right-hand operand is not tried; the runtime short-circuits after trying the unreflected dunder of the left-hand operand. For context, see this mailing list discussion.
class Foo:
def __radd__(self, other: "Foo") -> "Foo":
return self
# error: [unsupported-operator]
# revealed: Unknown
reveal_type(Foo() + Foo())
Wrong type
TODO: check signature and error if other is the wrong type