On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:51:17AM +0000, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> The name "Integral" isn't actually _wrong_ as such; it's just perhaps
> not the name that we would have chosen if we were inventing the
> numbers ABC right now.
> 
> If we add "Integer", we have to choose between
> 
> - maintaining both names indefinitely, or
> - deprecating and eventually removing the "Integral" name
> 
> Neither option seems appealing: the first is a violation of "one
> obvious way"; the second causes unnecessary work for third-party
> projects already using Integral.

The second option require very small part of work (oneline patch, to be
precise).  The one of the best parts of the Python is that it's a live
language.  I.e. wrong decisions could be corrected.

The current one is not wrong, in a strict sense, but if the C
standard, wikipedia pages, etc (include the Scheme numbers tower)
reference integer types and CPython docs call this "integral" -
I'm not sure if the later is a good name.