> Antoine, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that any type
> that defines __index__ is an integer, and should therefore also define
> __int__, in which case Python can just use __int__ and not worry about
> __index__?

... is an integer-like, yes.

> While I am beginning to agree that an integer type needs to implement
> both __int__ and __index__, it still remains true that Python needs to
> call __index__ if what it needs is already a real, true int, and not
> just something that can be truncated or otherwise converted into an
> int -- such as float.

Of course.