Issue #19931 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev).
So basically I thought that #to_i was for explicit conversion and #to_int for implicit conversion; is that not the case?
As far as I understand, it is exactly the case for operations that definitely expect an integer: ```ruby o = Object.new def o.to_int = 5 ('a'..'z').to_a[o] #=> "f" ('a'..'z').first(o) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"] 'a' * o # => "aaaaa" ``` (All of those cases would also clearly state "no **implicit** conversion of Object into Integer" if the argument wouldn't have `#to_int`.) ...while number arithmetics seems to be fully defined by `#coerce` and never tries to perform "implicit conversions". ---------------------------------------- Misc #19931: to_int is not for implicit conversion? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19931#change-104998 * Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- While reviewing some implicit vs explicit conversion concepts, I discovered that arithmetic operations do not perform the implicit conversion I expected from #to_int ```ruby o = Object.new def o.to_int; 1; end 1 + o #TypeError ``` I understand there's the whole #coerce thing for numbers, but I had expected #to_int to fit neatly into this and cause the object to be implicitly coerced to Integer. So basically I thought that #to_i was for explicit conversion and #to_int for implicit conversion; is that not the case? Most of the internet seems to think that (to_int : to_i) relationship is like (to_str : to_s). But I can't seems to find authoritative documentation on the topic. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/