On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 01.05.2013 23:48, schrieb Eli Bendersky: > > > Well, my point is that you currently don't have to inherit from int > (or IntEnum) > > to get an __int__ method on your Enum, which is what I find > questionable. IMO > > conversion to integers should only be defined for IntEnums. (But I > haven't > > followed all of the discussion and this may already have been > decided.) > > > > > > Good point. I think this may be just an artifact of the implementation - > PEP 435 > > prohibits implicit conversion to integers for non-IntEnum enums. Since > IntEnum > > came into existence, there's no real need for int-opearbility of other > enums, > > and their values can be arbitrary anyway. > > OK, I'm stupid -- I was thinking about moving the __int__ method to IntEnum > (that's why I brought it up in this part of the thread), but as a subclass > of > int itself that obviously isn't needed :) You did bring up a good point, though - __int__ should not be part of vanilla Enum. Eli
_______________________________________________ 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
