On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On 11/15/2017 04:55 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:


Rationale
=========

[...] It would be convenient to simplify this
procedure by recognizing ``__getattr__`` defined directly in a module that
would act like a normal ``__getattr__`` method
>>
>> [...]
>>
Specification
=============

>> The ``__getattr__`` function at the module level should accept one argument
which is the name of an attribute and return the computed value or raise
an ``AttributeError``::

   def __getattr__(name: str) -> Any: ...

This function will be called only if ``name`` is not found in the module
through the normal attribute lookup.

The Rationale (quoted in the beginning of this email) easily leaves a different impression of this.​

 I don't see how.  This is exactly the way normal __getattr__ works.



​Oh sorry, I think I put this email together too quickly. I was writing down a bunch of thoughts I had earlier but hadn't written down.​ I think I was mixing this up in my head with overriding __getitem__ for the module namespace dict and __class_getitem__ from PEP 560, which only gets called if the metaclass doesn't implement __getitem__ (IIRC).

But I did have another thought related to this. I was wondering whether the lack of passing the module to the methods as `self` would harm future attempts to generalize these ideas.

-- Koos

--
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +