homepage

Thank you everyone for increasing my understanding. :)
Terry J Reedy wrote:
--------------------
> [snip everything I now agree with, which is most of Terry's comment]
> 3. Every core usage of __int__ looks for __index__ also. Int() does not
> do this now, but '%d' does [...]
> 
> The exact details would depend on whether we want to allow (or at least
> bless) classes with __int__ and __index__ returning different ints.
I think we should state that __int__ and __index__ are expected to return the same value (if both are defined) otherwise one is on one's own (otherwise known as: if it breaks, you own all the pieces ;) .
> Given things as they are, I would simply expand the domain of %x, etc,
> to that of %d without bothering to go through a deprecation process.
This is not correct. `hex(3.14)` raises a TypeError, and so should `'%x' % 3.14`
While Terry's option 2 would have to wait for 3.5, is there any reason why fixing the %-formating characters to use __index__ instead of __int__ can't go into 3.4? That portion seems to be clearly a bug and not an enhancement (the enhancement portions of this ticket can be separated out into another issue).