Message 144001 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	meador.inge
Recipients	cmcqueen1975, mark.dickinson, mattchaput, meador.inge, ocean-city, orenti, skrah, vstinner
Date	2011-09-14.00:56:43
SpamBayes Score	1.9844383e-06
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<CAK1QooqRF00HsX3rzkRdVmttFQSeyoTArcuec8kqLFKxU_8NyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<1315940600.05.0.137136366724.issue1172711@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> Okay, understood. But the new 'long long' support provided by this patch still allows for __int__-based duck typing, right? Yes, but ... > That's the new duck typing I meant. I see this acceptance of things with an __int__ method as a mistake, and my gut > reaction earlier was that it seems wrong to propagate that mistake into the new long long functionality, even though it's already > present in other places in the array module. > > On second thoughts though, it would be a peculiar inconsistency to be able to pass Decimal objects to array('L', ...) but not > to array('Q', ...). So probably better to accept this behaviour for now, and open another issue for the __int__ / __index__ discussion, > as you suggest. ... I had this inconsistency in mind. I opened issue12974 for the __int__/__index__ problem. Now we just have to figure out which issue gets fixed first :-D I am OK with applying the fix for this issue first.

> Okay, understood.  But the new 'long long' support provided by this patch still allows for __int__-based duck typing, right?

Yes, but ...

> That's the new duck typing I meant.  I see this acceptance of things with an __int__ method as a mistake, and my gut
> reaction earlier was that it seems wrong to propagate that mistake into the new long long functionality, even though it's already
> present in other places in the array module.
>
> On second thoughts though, it would be a peculiar inconsistency to be able to pass Decimal objects to array('L', ...) but not
> to array('Q', ...).  So probably better to accept this behaviour for now, and open another issue for the __int__ / __index__ discussion,
> as you suggest.

... I had this inconsistency in mind.  I opened issue12974 for the
__int__/__index__ problem.

Now we just have to figure out which issue gets fixed first :-D  I am
OK with applying the fix for this issue first.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2011-09-14 00:56:44	meador.inge	set	recipients: + meador.inge, orenti, mark.dickinson, vstinner, ocean-city, cmcqueen1975, skrah, mattchaput
2011-09-14 00:56:43	meador.inge	link	issue1172711 messages
2011-09-14 00:56:43	meador.inge	create