[issue20092] type() constructor should bind __int__ to __index__ when __index__ is defined and __int__ is not

[Patrick Yang]

Patrick Yang <patrick.yang.1248 at gmail.com> added the comment:

I ended up in this issue after I learnt the following from the Python Library Reference Manual.

----
float(..).

For a general Python object x, float(x) delegates to x.__float__(). If __float__() is not defined then it falls back to __index__().
----

The discussion on __int__() and __index__() was very interesting but I still didn't get the answer I wanted.

If __int__() is assumed to be a possibly approximate conversion and it's possible that __int__() may exist while __index__() doesn't, shouldn't __int__() be used as a fall back before __index__()? 

The downside would be that the resulting float may not be "very close" to the original object because __int__() is only an approximation while __index__() guarantees exact, but loss of precision is acceptable during type conversion, isn't it? (i.e. int(3.14) -> 3). Perhaps it's not acceptable if the conversion is a widening conversion and that's why __int__() is skipped?

----------
nosy: +patrick.yang.1248

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue20092>
_______________________________________