Dexter Hill wrote:
Do you mind providing a little example of what you mean? I'm not sure I 100% understand what your use of `__post_init__` is. In my mind, it would be something like: ```py @dataclass class Foo: x: str = field(init=int, converter=chr) # which converts to class Foo: def __init__(self, x: int): self.x = chr(x) ``` without any use of `__post_init__`. If it were to be something like: ```py class Foo: def __init__(self, x: int): self.__post_init__(x) def __post_init__(x: int): self.x = chr(x) ``` which, I think is what you are suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong), then I feel that may be confusing if you were to override `__post_init__`, which is often much easier than overriding `__init__`. For exmple, in a situation like: ```py @dataclass class Foo: x: str = field(init=int, converter=chr) y: InitVar[str] ``` if the user were to override `__post_init__`, would they know that they need to include `x` as the first argument? It's not typed with `InitVar` so it might not be clear that it's passed to `__post_init__`. That's close to what I mean. I'm actually suggesting to not have 'converter though, and instead use an explicit `__post_init__` for that, so
@dataclass
class Foo:
x: str = field(init=int)
def __post_init__(self, x: int):
self.x = chr(x)
# converts to
class Foo:
def __init__(self, x: int):
self.__post_init__(x)
def __post_init__(self, x: int):
self.x = chr(x)
Writing that out is helpful because now I see that the argument type can possibly be taken from the `__post_init__` signature, meaning there is no need to use the type as the value for the `init` argument to `field`. In that case, instead of `init=int`, it could maybe be something like `post_init=True`.