[Python-ideas] Is there a reason some of the PyLong_As* functions don't call an object's __int__?
erik.m.bray at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 07:33:32 EST 2017
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 08.12.17 12:41, Erik Bray пише:
>> IIUC, it seems to be carry-over from Python 2's PyLong API, but I
>> don't see an obvious reason for it. In every case there's an explicit
>> PyLong_Check first anyways, so not calling __int__ doesn't help for
>> the common case of exact int objects; adding the fallback costs
>> nothing in that case.
> There is also a case of int subclasses. It is expected that PyLong_AsLong is
> atomic, and calling __int__ can lead to crashes or similar consequences.
>> I ran into this because I was passing an object that implements
>> __int__ to the maxlen argument to deque(). On Python 2 this used
>> PyInt_AsSsize_t which does fall back to calling __int__, whereas
>> PyLong_AsSsize_t does not.
> PyLong_* functions provide an interface to PyLong objects. If they don't
> return the content of a PyLong object, how can it be retrieved? If you want
> to work with general numbers you should use PyNumber_* functions.
By "you " I assume you meant the generic "you". I'm not the one who
broke things in this case :)
> In your particular case it is more reasonable to fallback to __index__
> rather than __int__. Unlikely maxlen=4.2 makes sense.
That's true, but in Python 2 that was possible:
>>> deque(, maxlen=4.2)
More importantly not as many objects that coerce to int actually
implement __index__. They probably *should* but there seems to be
some confusion about how that's to be used. It was mainly motivated
by slices, but it *could* be used in general cases where it definitely
wouldn't make sense to accept a float (I wonder if maybe the real
problem here is that floats can be coerced automatically to ints....)
In other words, there are probably countless other cases in the stdlib
at all where it "doesn't make sense" to accept a float, but that
otherwise should accept objects that can be coerced to int without
having to manually wrap those objects with an int(o) call.
>> Currently the following functions fall back on __int__ where available:
> I think this should be deprecated (and there should be an open issue for
> this). Calling __int__ is just a Python 2 legacy.
Okay, but then there are probably many cases where they should be
replaced with PyNumber_ equivalents or else who knows how much code
More information about the Python-ideas