Both of these seem 2.6-specific quirks. Those lines wereJeffrey's; maybe he remembers? I'm guessing that adding __long__ was done since 2.6 supports it, and the removal of __int__ was an oversight. I also think that there's no reason to change __index__ to call long(); int() will automatically return a long as needed. Maybe changing __long__ back to __int__ is also harmless.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Make that int() instead of long() and I'm okay with it. > > Does anyone know why Integral says that __long__ is a required abstract > method, but not __int__? > > Likewise, why is index() defined as long(self) instead of int(self)? > > There may be some design nuance that I'm not seeing. > > > Raymond > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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