Python-ideas November 2017

python-ideas@python.org

95 participants
60 discussions

Adding a thin wrapper class around the functions in stdlib.heapq
by bunslow 18 Feb '22

18 Feb '22

Nothing so bombastic this time. The heapq functions are basically all named "heapsomething", and basically all take a "heap" for their first argument, with supplementary args coming after. It's a textbook example of the (hypothetical) Object Oriented Manifesto™ where defining a class increases type safety and programmers' conceptual clarity. There're practically no drawbacks, and the code to be added would be very simple. Updating the tests and docs would probably be harder. In pure Python, such a class would look like this: class Heap(list): def __init__(self, iterable=None): if iterable: super().__init__(iterable) else: super().__init__() self.heapify() push = heapq.heappush pop = heapq.heappop pushpop = heapq.heappushpop replace = heapq.heapreplace heapify = heapq.heapify # This could be a simple wrapper as well, but I had the following thoughts anyways, so here they are def nsmallest(self, n, key=None): # heapq.nsmallest makes a *max* heap of the first n elements, # while we know that self is already a min heap, so we can # make the max heap construction faster self[:n] = reversed(self[:n]) return heapq.nsmallest(n, self, key) # do we define nlargest on a minheap?? Wrapping around the C builtin functions (which aren't descriptors) would be a bit harder, but not much so: from functools import partial class Heap(list): def __init__(self, iterable=None): if iterable: super().__init__(iterable) else: super().__init__() self.heapify = partial(heapq.heapify, self) self.push = partial(heapq.heappush, self) ... self.heapify() Thoughts?

17 32

@classproperty, @abc.abstractclasspropery, etc.
by K. Richard Pixley 16 Dec '20

16 Dec '20

There's a whole matrix of these and I'm wondering why the matrix is currently sparse rather than implementing them all. Or rather, why we can't stack them as: class foo(object): @classmethod @property def bar(cls, ...): ... Essentially the permutation are, I think: {'unadorned'|abc.abstract}{'normal'|static|class}{method|property|non-callable attribute}. concreteness implicit first arg type name comments {unadorned} {unadorned} method def foo(): exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} property @property exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} non-callable attribute x = 2 exists now {unadorned} static method @staticmethod exists now {unadorned} static property @staticproperty proposing {unadorned} static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary {unadorned} class method @classmethod exists now {unadorned} class property @classproperty or @classmethod;@property proposing {unadorned} class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract {unadorned} method @abc.abstractmethod exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} property @abc.abstractproperty exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} non-callable attribute @abc.abstractattribute or @abc.abstract;@attribute proposing abc.abstract static method @abc.abstractstaticmethod exists now abc.abstract static property @abc.staticproperty proposing abc.abstract static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract class method @abc.abstractclassmethod exists now abc.abstract class property @abc.abstractclassproperty proposing abc.abstract class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary I think the meanings of the new ones are pretty straightforward, but in case they are not... @staticproperty - like @property only without an implicit first argument. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @classproperty - like @property, only the implicit first argument to the method is the class. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @abc.abstractattribute - a simple, non-callable variable that must be overridden in subclasses @abc.abstractstaticproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @staticproperty @abc.abstractclassproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @classproperty --rich

10 15

Specify number of items to allocate for array.array() constructor
by Sven Rahmann 22 Feb '20

22 Feb '20

At the moment, the array module of the standard library allows to create arrays of different numeric types and to initialize them from an iterable (eg, another array). What's missing is the possiblity to specify the final size of the array (number of items), especially for large arrays. I'm thinking of suffix arrays (a text indexing data structure) for large texts, eg the human genome and its reverse complement (about 6 billion characters from the alphabet ACGT). The suffix array is a long int array of the same size (8 bytes per number, so it occupies about 48 GB memory). At the moment I am extending an array in chunks of several million items at a time at a time, which is slow and not elegant. The function below also initializes each item in the array to a given value (0 by default). Is there a reason why there the array.array constructor does not allow to simply specify the number of items that should be allocated? (I do not really care about the contents.) Would this be a worthwhile addition to / modification of the array module? My suggestions is to modify array generation in such a way that you could pass an iterator (as now) as second argument, but if you pass a single integer value, it should be treated as the number of items to allocate. Here is my current workaround (which is slow): def filled_array(typecode, n, value=0, bsize=(1<<22)): """returns a new array with given typecode (eg, "l" for long int, as in the array module) with n entries, initialized to the given value (default 0) """ a = array.array(typecode, [value]*bsize) x = array.array(typecode) r = n while r >= bsize: x.extend(a) r -= bsize x.extend([value]*r) return x

14 20

Asynchronous exception handling around with/try statement borders
by Erik Bray 24 Sep '18

24 Sep '18

Hi folks, I normally wouldn't bring something like this up here, except I think that there is possibility of something to be done--a language documentation clarification if nothing else, though possibly an actual code change as well. I've been having an argument with a colleague over the last couple days over the proper way order of statements when setting up a try/finally to perform cleanup of some action. On some level we're both being stubborn I think, and I'm not looking for resolution as to who's right/wrong or I wouldn't bring it to this list in the first place. The original argument was over setting and later restoring os.environ, but we ended up arguing over threading.Lock.acquire/release which I think is a more interesting example of the problem, and he did raise a good point that I do want to bring up. </prologue> My colleague's contention is that given lock = threading.Lock() this is simply *wrong*: lock.acquire() try: do_something() finally: lock.release() whereas this is okay: with lock: do_something() Ignoring other details of how threading.Lock is actually implemented, assuming that Lock.__enter__ calls acquire() and Lock.__exit__ calls release() then as far as I've known ever since Python 2.5 first came out these two examples are semantically *equivalent*, and I can't find any way of reading PEP 343 or the Python language reference that would suggest otherwise. However, there *is* a difference, and has to do with how signals are handled, particularly w.r.t. context managers implemented in C (hence we are talking CPython specifically): If Lock.__enter__ is a pure Python method (even if it maybe calls some C methods), and a SIGINT is handled during execution of that method, then in almost all cases a KeyboardInterrupt exception will be raised from within Lock.__enter__--this means the suite under the with: statement is never evaluated, and Lock.__exit__ is never called. You can be fairly sure the KeyboardInterrupt will be raised from somewhere within a pure Python Lock.__enter__ because there will usually be at least one remaining opcode to be evaluated, such as RETURN_VALUE. Because of how delayed execution of signal handlers is implemented in the pyeval main loop, this means the signal handler for SIGINT will be called *before* RETURN_VALUE, resulting in the KeyboardInterrupt exception being raised. Standard stuff. However, if Lock.__enter__ is a PyCFunction things are quite different. If you look at how the SETUP_WITH opcode is implemented, it first calls the __enter__ method with _PyObjet_CallNoArg. If this returns NULL (i.e. an exception occurred in __enter__) then "goto error" is executed and the exception is raised. However if it returns non-NULL the finally block is set up with PyFrame_BlockSetup and execution proceeds to the next opcode. At this point a potentially waiting SIGINT is handled, resulting in KeyboardInterrupt being raised while inside the with statement's suite, and finally block, and hence Lock.__exit__ are entered. Long story short, because Lock.__enter__ is a C function, assuming that it succeeds normally then with lock: do_something() always guarantees that Lock.__exit__ will be called if a SIGINT was handled inside Lock.__enter__, whereas with lock.acquire() try: ... finally: lock.release() there is at last a small possibility that the SIGINT handler is called after the CALL_FUNCTION op but before the try/finally block is entered (e.g. before executing POP_TOP or SETUP_FINALLY). So the end result is that the lock is held and never released after the KeyboardInterrupt (whether or not it's handled somehow). Whereas, again, if Lock.__enter__ is a pure Python function there's less likely to be any difference (though I don't think the possibility can be ruled out entirely). At the very least I think this quirk of CPython should be mentioned somewhere (since in all other cases the semantic meaning of the "with:" statement is clear). However, I think it might be possible to gain more consistency between these cases if pending signals are checked/handled after any direct call to PyCFunction from within the ceval loop. Sorry for the tl;dr; any thoughts?

7 15

Positional-only parameters
by Victor Stinner 11 Sep '18

11 Sep '18

Hi, For technical reasons, many functions of the Python standard libraries implemented in C have positional-only parameters. Example: ------- $ ./python Python 3.7.0a0 (default, Feb 25 2017, 04:30:32) >>> help(str.replace) replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /) # <== notice "/" at the end ... >>> "a".replace("x", "y") # ok 'a' >>> "a".replace(old="x", new="y") # ERR! TypeError: replace() takes at least 2 arguments (0 given) ------- When converting the methods of the builtin str type to the internal "Argument Clinic" tool (tool to generate the function signature, function docstring and the code to parse arguments in C), I asked if we should add support for keyword arguments in str.replace(). The answer was quick: no! It's a deliberate design choice. Quote of Yury Selivanov's message: """ I think Guido explicitly stated that he doesn't like the idea to always allow keyword arguments for all methods. I.e. `str.find('aaa')` just reads better than `str.find(needle='aaa')`. Essentially, the idea is that for most of the builtins that accept one or two arguments, positional-only parameters are better. """ http://bugs.python.org/issue29286#msg285578 I just noticed a module on PyPI to implement this behaviour on Python functions: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/positional My question is: would it make sense to implement this feature in Python directly? If yes, what should be the syntax? Use "/" marker? Use the @positional() decorator? Do you see concrete cases where it's a deliberate choice to deny passing arguments as keywords? Don't you like writing int(x="123") instead of int("123")? :-) (I know that Serhiy Storshake hates the name of the "x" parameter of the int constructor ;-)) By the way, I read that "/" marker is unknown by almost all Python developers, and [...] syntax should be preferred, but inspect.signature() doesn't support this syntax. Maybe we should fix signature() and use [...] format instead? Replace "replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /)" with "replace(self, old, new[, count=-1])" (or maybe even not document the default value?). Python 3.5 help (docstring) uses "S.replace(old, new[, count])". Victor

19 27

Implicit string literal concatenation considered harmful?
by Guido van Rossum 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

I just spent a few minutes staring at a bug caused by a missing comma -- I got a mysterious argument count error because instead of foo('a', 'b') I had written foo('a' 'b'). This is a fairly common mistake, and IIRC at Google we even had a lint rule against this (there was also a Python dialect used for some specific purpose where this was explicitly forbidden). Now, with modern compiler technology, we can (and in fact do) evaluate compile-time string literal concatenation with the '+' operator, so there's really no reason to support 'a' 'b' any more. (The reason was always rather flimsy; I copied it from C but the reason why it's needed there doesn't really apply to Python, as it is mostly useful inside macros.) Would it be reasonable to start deprecating this and eventually remove it from the language? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

51 165

Repurpose `assert' into a general-purpose check
by Ivan Pozdeev 17 Jan '18

17 Jan '18

The `assert' statment was created the same as in previous languages like C/C++: a check to only do in debug mode, when you can't yet trust your code to manage and pass around internal data correctly. Examples are array bounds and object state integrity constraints. Unlike C, Python does the aforementioned checks all the time, i.e. it's effectively always in "debug mode". Furthermore, validation checks are an extremily common use case. I have been using assert in my in-house code for input validation for a long time, the only thing preventing me from doing the same in public code is the fact that it only raises AssertionError's while library code is expected to raise TypeError or ValueError on invalid input. The last drop that incited me to do this proposition was https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2142202/what-are-acceptable-use-cases-f… where none of the _seven_ answer authors (beside me) managed to make a _single realistic use case_ for `assert' as a debug-only check. --- So, I'm hereby proposing to: * make `assert' stay in optimized mode * change its syntax to raise other types of exceptions E.g.: "assert condition, type, value" or "assert condition, type, exception_constructor_argument(s)" to maintain backward compatibility. -- Regards, Ivan

17 34

PEP 447: Adding type.__getdescriptor__
by Ronald Oussoren 03 Dec '17

03 Dec '17

Hi, I’m trying to get up to speed again w.r.t. PEP 447 (and to be honest, with CPython’s development workflow as its been too long since I’ve actually done work on the CPython codebase…). Let me start by recapping the PEP (<https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0447/ <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0447/>>) is about: The problem I’m trying to solve is that super.__getattribute__ basicy assumes looking at the __dict__ of classes on the MRO is all that’s needed to check if those classes provide an attribute. The core of both object.__getattribute__ and super.__getattribute__ for finding a descriptor on the class is basically (from the PEP): def _PyType_Lookup(tp, name): mro = tp.mro() assert isinstance(mro, tuple) for base in mro: assert isinstance(base, type) try: return base.__dict__[name] except KeyError: pass return None Note that the real implementation in in C, and accesses base.__dict__ directly instead of through Python’s attribute lookup (which would lead to infinite recursion). This is problematic when the class is dynamically populated, as the descriptor may not yet be present in the class __dict__. This is not a problem for normal attribute lookup, as you can replace the __getattribute__ method of the class to do the additional work (at the cost of having to reimplement all of __getattribute__). This is a problem for super() calls though, as super will unconditionally use the lookup code above. The PEP proposed to replace “base.__dict__[name]” by “base.__class__.__getdescriptor__(name)” (once again, in C with direct access to the two slots instead of accessing them through normal attribute lookup). I have two open questions about this PEP: 1) Last time around Mark Shannon worried that this introduces infinite recursion in the language itself (in my crummy summary, please read this message to get the real concern <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-July/140938.html <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-July/140938.html>>). Is this truly a problem? I don’t think there is a problem, but I’m worried that I don’t fully understand Mark’s concerns. 2) PEP 487 introduced __init_subclass__ as a class method to avoid having to write a metaclass for a number of use cases. My PEP currently does require a metaclass, but it might be nicer to switch to a regular class method instead (like __init_subclass__). My primary usecase for this PEP is PyObjC, which does populate the class dictionary on demand for performance and correctness reasons and PyObC therefore currently includes a replacement for super. For PyObjC’s implementation making __getdescriptor__ a classmethod would be a win as this would avoid creating yet another level of metaclasses in C code (PyObjC already has a Python class and metaclass for every Objective-C class, PEP 447 would require the introduction of a metaclass for those metaclasses). BTW. Two other open issues w.r.t. this PEP are forward porting the patch (in issue 18181) and performing benchmarks. The patch doesn’t apply cleanly to the current tip of the tree, I’ll try to update it tomorrow. And with some luck will manage to update PyObjC’s implementation as well to validate the design. Ronald

2 9

Re: [Python-ideas] [Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?
by Steven D'Aprano 03 Dec '17

03 Dec '17

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:31:06PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > > I also cc python-dev to see if anybody here is strongly in favor or against this inclusion. > > Put me down for a strong -1. The proposal would occasionally save a > few keystokes but comes at the expense of giving Python a more Perlish > look and a more arcane feel. I think that's an unfair characterisation of the benefits of the PEP. It's not just "a few keystrokes". Ironically, the equivalent in Perl is // which Python has used for truncating division since version 2.4 or so. So if we're in danger of looking "Perlish", that ship has sailed a long time ago. Perl is hardly the only language with null-coalescing operators -- we might better describe ?? as being familiar to C#, PHP, Swift and Dart. That's two mature, well-known languages and two up-and-coming languages. [...] > timeout ?? local_timeout ?? global_timeout As opposed to the status quo: timeout if timeout is not None else (local_timeout if local_timeout is not None else global_timeout) Or shorter, but even harder to understand: (global_timeout if local_timeout is None else local_timeout) if timeout is None else timeout I'd much prefer to teach the version with ?? -- it has a simple explanation: "the first of the three given values which isn't None". The ?? itself needs to be memorized, but that's no different from any other operator. The first time I saw ** I was perplexed and couldn't imagine what it meaned. Here ?? doesn't merely save a few keystrokes, it significantly reduces the length and complexity of the expression and entirely cuts out the duplication of names. If you can teach timeout or local_timeout or global_timeout then you ought to be able to teach ??, as it is simpler: it only compares to None, and avoids needing to explain or justify Python's truthiness model. > 'foo' in (None ?? ['foo', 'bar']) If you can understand 'foo' in (False or ['foo', 'bar']) then surely you can understand the version with ??. > requested_quantity ?? default_quantity * price Again: (default_quantity if requested_quantity is None else requested_quantity) * price I'd much prefer to read, write and teach the version with ?? over the status quo. -- Steve

11 21

How assignment should work with generators?
by Kirill Balunov 02 Dec '17

02 Dec '17

Currently during assignment, when target list is a comma-separated list of targets (*without "starred" target*) the rule is that the object (rhs) must be an iterable with the same number of items as there are targets in the target list. That is, no check is performed on the number of targets present, and if something goes wrong the ValueError is raised. To show this on simple example: >>> from itertools import count, islice >>> it = count() >>> x, y = it >>> it count(3) Here the count was advanced two times but assignment did not happen. I found that in some cases it is too much restricting that rhs must have the same number of items as targets. It is proposed that if the rhs is a generator or an iterator (better some object that yields values on demand), the assignmenet should be lazy and dependent on the number of targets. I find this feature to be very convenient for interactive use, while it remains readable, expected, and expressed in a more compact code. There are some Pros: 1. No overhead 2. Readable and not so verbose code 3. Optimized case for x,y,*z = iterator 4. Clear way to assign values partially from infinite generators. Cons: 1. A special case of how assignment works 2. As with any implicit behavior, hard-to-find bugs There several cases with "undefined" behavior: 1. Because the items are assigned, from left to right to the corresponding targets, should rhs see side effects during assignment or not? 2. Should this work only for generators or for any iterators? 3. Is it Pythonic to distinguish what is on the rhs during assignment, or it contradicts with duck typing (goose typing)? In many cases it is possible to do this right now, but in too verbose way: >>> x, y = islice(gen(), 2) But it seems for me that: >>> x, y = gen() Looks the same, easy to follow and not so verbose. Another case, which is a pitfall, but will be possible: >>> x, y = iter([0,1,2,3,4]) # Now it is Ok >>> x 1 >>> y 2 But: >>> x, y = [0,1,2,3,4] # raises ValueError Any thoughts? With kind regards, -gdg

14 61

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Python-ideas November 2017