On 2013-04-03 13:47, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
On 04/03/2013 01:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > >
> > I like Nick's answer to that: int *should* always return something of
> > exact type int. Otherwise you're always left wondering whether you
> > have to do "int(int(x))", or perhaps even "int(int(int(x)))", to be
> > absolutely sure of getting an int.
>
> Agreed.
Perhaps we should start emitting a DeprecationWarning for int subclasses
returned from __int__ and __index__ in 3.4?
Why would one want to be absolutely sure of getting an int?
It seems like a good feature that an __int__ implementation can choose to return
an int subclass with additional (and optional) information. After all, int
subclass instances should be usable everywhere where ints are, including in C
code. I can imagine numpy and similar projects would be making use of this
ability already -- just think of uses for numpy's subclasses of "float".
We don't.
[~]
|1> type(float(np.float64(1.0)))
float
[~]
|2> type(int(np.int32(1)))
int
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
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
