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' ;) 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 -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! _______________________________________________ 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
