Le Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:21:22 -0700, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> a écrit : > On 04/03/2013 08:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > > On 4 Apr 2013 00:18, "Barry Warsaw" <ba...@python.org > > <mailto:ba...@python.org>> wrote: > >> > >> __index__() is a bit trickier because it is not tied directly to > >> type conversion. In this case, int subclasses could be valid, and > >> as Hrvoje later points out, returning int-subclasses from > >> __index__() should still work for all valid use cases. > > > > Implementing __index__ just means "This type can be converted to a > > Python integer without losing information". Aside from that extra > > "without information loss" qualification, it's the same as __int__. > > How is that possible? Whether int or int subclass, if I'm > implementing __index__ it means my type is not an int subclass, and > when I return an int I most certainly have lost information from the > original type.
Without losing information about the numeric value. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
