fraction.Fraction does not implement __int__.

@rhettinger

BPO	44547
Nosy	@rhettinger, @mdickinson, @mamrhein, @ambv, @serhiy-storchaka, @MojoVampire
PRs	bpo-44547: Make Fractions objects instances of typing.SupportsInt #27851

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2021-10-21.22:10:31.682>
created_at = <Date 2021-07-01.19:52:28.462>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library', '3.11']
title = 'fraction.Fraction does not implement __int__.'
updated_at = <Date 2021-10-21.22:10:31.681>
user = 'https://github.com/mamrhein'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2021-10-21.22:10:31.681>
actor = 'lukasz.langa'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2021-10-21.22:10:31.682>
closer = 'lukasz.langa'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2021-07-01.19:52:28.462>
creator = 'mamrhein'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 44547
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 15.0
messages = ['396827', '396840', '396847', '396856', '396858', '396861', '396864', '396868', '396876', '397022', '397033', '399958', '400060', '404682', '404683']
nosy_count = 6.0
nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'mark.dickinson', 'mamrhein', 'lukasz.langa', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'josh.r']
pr_nums = ['27851']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue44547'
versions = ['Python 3.11']

While int, float, complex and Decimal implement __int__, Fraction does not. Thus, checking for typing.SupportsInt for fractions fails, although int(<fraction>) succeeds, because Fraction implements __trunc__.
This looks inconsistent.
Easiest fix seems to be: Fraction.__int__ = Fraction.__trunc__

Seems like an equally reasonable solution would be to make class's with __trunc__ but not __int__ automatically generate a __int__ in terms of __trunc__ (similar to __str__ using __repr__ when the latter is defined but not the former). The inconsistency is in both methods existing, but having the equivalence implemented in int() rather than in the type (thereby making SupportsInt behave unexpectedly, even though it's 100% true that obj.__int__() would fail).

FWIW, there's some history here: there's a good reason that fractions.Fraction didn't originally implement __int__.

Back in the Bad Old Days, many Python functions that expected an integer would accept anything whose type implemented __int__ instead, and call __int__ to get the required integer. For example:

Python 3.7.10 (default, Jun  1 2021, 23:43:35) 
[Clang 11.0.3 (clang-1103.0.32.62)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from decimal import Decimal
>>> chr(Decimal("45.67"))
'-'

Effectively, int was being used to mean two different things: (1) this value can be used as an integer, and (2) this value can be truncated to an integer. The solution was to introduce two new dedicated magic methods index and trunc for these two different meanings. See PEP-357 and PEP-3141 for some of the details. So adding int to fractions.Fraction would have made things like chr(Fraction("5/2")) possible, too.

The behaviour above is still present (with a deprecation warning) in Python 3.9, and chr(Decimal("45.67")) has only finally been made a TypeError in Python 3.10.

We may now finally be in a state where ill-advised uses of __int__ in internal functions have all been deprecated and removed, so that it's safe to re-add __int__ methods.

But still, this seems mostly like an issue with the typing library. What is typing.SupportsInt intended to indicate? That an object can be used _as_ an integer, or that an object can be _truncated_ to an integer?

Maybe typing.SupportsIndex

Apologies: that already exists, of course. It was introduced in bpo-36972.

As another data point, complex supporting __int__ is a little bit of an oddity, since all that __int__ method does is raise a TypeError.

This was fixed in 3.10: bpo-41974

The background is an implementation of __pow__ for a fixed-point decimal number:

SupportsIntOrFloat = Union[SupportsInt, SupportsFloat]

def __pow__(self, other: SupportsIntOrFloat, mod: Any = None) -> Complex:
    if isinstance(other, SupportsInt):
        exp = int(other)
        if exp == other:
            ... handle integer exponent
    if isinstance(other, SupportsFloat):
        # fractional exponent => fallback to float
        return float(self) ** float(other)
    return NotImplemented

I came across SupportsInt and SupportsFloat, because they are used in typeshed as param types for int and float.

Thanks, that's helpful. I guess what you _really_ want there is a duck-typed "tell me whether this value is integral and if so give me the corresponding Python int", but that's not currently easily available, so I suppose x == int(x) is the next-best thing. Possibly the "right" way from the point of view of PEP-3141 is to be testing x == math.trunc(x) instead and asking for typing.SupportsTrunc, but it seems to me that __trunc__ never did really take off the way it was intended to.

tl;dr: I agree it would make sense to add __int__ to fractions.Fraction for 3.11.

In ideal world we would use __int__ for (1), and __trunc__ for (2). But for some historical reasons __index__ was introduced for (1) and __int__ is only used in the int constructor, although it falls back to __trunc__.

I am wondering whether one of __int__ or __trunc__ should be deprecated.

I am wondering whether one of __int__ or __trunc__ should be deprecated.

I would not miss __trunc__.

On other hand, there are classes which define __int__ but not __trunc__: UUID and IP4Address. So it makes sense to keep separate __int__ and __trunc__.

Fraction.__int__ = Fraction.__trunc__ may not work because __trunc__() can return any object with __index__, while __int__ should return an exact int (not even an int subclass).

I think there's no reason not to keep __trunc__ and math.trunc - they're natural counterparts to floor and ceil, and there's probably at least some code out there already using math.trunc.

It's the involvement of __trunc__ in the int() builtin that I'd quite like to deprecate and eventually remove. I think at this point it complicates the object model for no particularly good reason. But this is getting off-topic for this issue; I'll open a new one.

New changeset d1b2477 by Mark Dickinson in branch 'main':
bpo-44547: Make Fractions objects instances of typing.SupportsInt (GH-27851)
d1b2477

Thanks for the patch, Mark! ✨ 🍰 ✨

The background is an implementation of pow for a fixed-point decimal number:

SupportsIntOrFloat = Union[SupportsInt, SupportsFloat]

def __pow__(self, other: SupportsIntOrFloat, mod: Any = None) -> Complex:
    if isinstance(other, SupportsInt):
        exp = int(other)
        if exp == other:
            ... handle integer exponent
    if isinstance(other, SupportsFloat):
        # fractional exponent => fallback to float
        return float(self) ** float(other)
    return NotImplemented

I came across SupportsInt and SupportsFloat, because they are used in typeshed as param types for int and float.

I'm going to note, this code is subtly confusing/wrong. Since float itself is considered an instance of SupportsInt (and I believe has done so for as long as isinstance has worked with typing.SupportsInt), actual floats will be treated as int if they happen to have no decimal component (the equality test at least avoids the worst case where they silently lose data), so the values of your arguments change the type of your result, which is... not great.

In practice, you really want to be testing for SupportsIndex (which means something is logically equivalent to an integer and can be converted to an int losslessly) and using operator.index(other) for the conversion (int(operator.index(other)) if it must produce an exact int, not a subclass thereof), or, with slightly different semantics (that should never differ on properly implemented integral types, but many types aren't properly implemented), testing isinstance(other, numbers.Integral) (at which point it usually doesn't matter if you use int() or operator.index() since it supports both, and at worst using index allows you to get an int subclass as a result, where int() guarantees a true int).

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

fraction.Fraction does not implement int. #88713

4 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

fraction.Fraction does not implement __int__. #88713

Description

Activity

mamrhein commented on Jul 1, 2021

MojoVampire commented on Jul 2, 2021

mdickinson commented on Jul 2, 2021

4 remaining items

mdickinson commented on Jul 2, 2021

mdickinson commented on Jul 2, 2021

mamrhein commented on Jul 2, 2021

mdickinson commented on Jul 2, 2021

serhiy-storchaka commented on Jul 2, 2021

rhettinger commented on Jul 5, 2021

serhiy-storchaka commented on Jul 6, 2021

serhiy-storchaka commented on Aug 20, 2021

mdickinson commented on Aug 22, 2021

ambv commented on Oct 21, 2021

ambv commented on Oct 21, 2021

MojoVampire commented on May 3, 2022

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

fraction.Fraction does not implement int. #88713