Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, eric.smith, ethan.furman, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, vstinner
Date 2013-12-16.22:15:20
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1387232118.2303.5.camel@fsol>
In-reply-to <1387231868.3.0.713551062632.issue19995@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> Antoine, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that any type
> that defines __index__ is an integer, and should therefore also define
> __int__, in which case Python can just use __int__ and not worry about
> __index__?

... is an integer-like, yes.

> While I am beginning to agree that an integer type needs to implement
> both __int__ and __index__, it still remains true that Python needs to
> call __index__ if what it needs is already a real, true int, and not
> just something that can be truncated or otherwise converted into an
> int -- such as float.

Of course.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-12-16 22:15:20pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, vstinner, eric.smith, Arfrever, skrah, ethan.furman, serhiy.storchaka
2013-12-16 22:15:20pitroulinkissue19995 messages
2013-12-16 22:15:20pitroucreate