On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Darren Dale <dsdale24@gmail.com> wrote:
for base in bases: for name in getattr(base, "__abstractmethods__", ()): # CHANGE 4: Using rpartition better tolerates weird naming in the metaclass # (weird naming in descriptors will still blow up in the earlier search for abstract names)
Could you provide an example of weird naming?
class C(object): ... pass ... setattr(C, 'weird.name', staticmethod(int)) [...]
This is definitely something that could legitimately be dismissed as "well, don't do that then" (particularly since similarly weird names on the descriptors will still break). However, I also prefer the way partition based code reads over split-based code, so I still like the modified version.
Yes, I like your modified version as well. I just wanted to understand your concern, since it had never occurred to me to try something like "setattr(C, 'pathological.name', ...)".
Full tolerance for weird naming would require storing 2-tuples in __abstractmethods__ which would cause a whole new set of problems and isn't worth the hassle.
I'm glad you feel that way. I'll work on a patch that includes docs and unit tests and post it at http://bugs.python.org/issue11610. What do you think about deprecating abstractproperty, or removing it from the documentation? Darren