[Python-Dev] Re: the "3*x works w/o __rmul__" bug

[Guido van Rossum]

> So perhaps for 2.3 we should just apologetically note the anomaly
> in the docs, and for 2.4 forbid the former case, i.e., require both
> __mul__ AND __rmul__ to exist if one wants to code sequence
> classes that can be multiplied by integers on either side...?
> 
> Any opinions, anybody...?

What's wrong with the status quo?  So 3*x is undefined, and it happens
to return x*3.  Is that so bad?

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)