Thomas Wouters wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:32:47PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>Looks good to me. Only change I might make is mention why __int__ >>doesn't work sooner (such as in the rationale). Otherwise +1 from me. > > > I have a slight reservation about the name. On the one hand it's clear the > canonical use will be for indexing sequences, and __index__ doesn't look > enough like __int__ to get people confused on the difference. On the other > hand, there are other places (in C) that want an actual int, and they could > use __index__ too. Even more so if a PyArg_Parse* grew a format for 'the > index-value for this object' ;) >
There are other places in Python that check specifically for int objects and long integer objects and fail with anything else. Perhaps all of these should aslo call the __index__ slot. But, then it *should* be renamed to i.e. "__true_int__". One such place is in abstract.c sequence_repeat function. The patch I submitted, perhaps aggressivele, changed that function to call the nb_index slot as well instead of raising an error. Perhaps the slot should be called nb_true_int? -Travis > On the *other* one hand, I can't think of a good name... but on the other > other hand, it would be awkward to have to support an old name just because > the real use wasn't envisioned yet. > > One-time-machine-for-the-shortsighted-quadrumanus-please-ly y'r,s _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
