Well, it seems like Integral instances should be able to be passed to either int() or long(), so __long__ should probably stay. I have no idea why I didn't include __int__, but its absence was probably the only reason __index__ calls long() instead of int().
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/) > -- Namasté, Jeffrey Yasskin http://jeffrey.yasskin.info/ _______________________________________________ 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
