Ethan Furman added the comment: Thank you everyone for increasing my understanding. :)
Terry J Reedy wrote: -------------------- > [snip everything I now agree with, which is most of Terry's comment] > 3. Every core usage of __int__ looks for __index__ also. Int() does not > do this now, but '%d' does [...] > > The exact details would depend on whether we want to allow (or at least > bless) classes with __int__ and __index__ returning different ints. I think we should state that __int__ and __index__ are expected to return the same value (if both are defined) otherwise one is on one's own (otherwise known as: if it breaks, you own all the pieces ;) . > Given things as they are, I would simply expand the domain of %x, etc, > to that of %d without bothering to go through a deprecation process. This is not correct. `hex(3.14)` raises a TypeError, and so should `'%x' % 3.14` While Terry's option 2 would have to wait for 3.5, is there any reason why fixing the %-formating characters to use __index__ instead of __int__ can't go into 3.4? That portion seems to be clearly a bug and not an enhancement (the enhancement portions of this ticket can be separated out into another issue). ---------- nosy: +larry _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19995> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
