Dexter Hill wrote:
The idea is to have a `default_factory` like argument (either in the `field` function, or a new function entirely) that takes a function as an argument, and that function, with the value provided by `__init__`, is called and the return value is used as the value for the respective field. For example: ```py @dataclass class Foo: x: str = field(init_fn=chr) f = Foo(65) f.x # "A" ``` The `chr` function is called, given the value `65` and `x` is set to its return value of `"A"`. I understand that there is both `__init__` and `__post_init__` which can be used for this purpose, but sometimes it isn't ideal to override them. If you overrided `__init__`, and were using `__post_init__`, you would need to manually call it, and in my case, `__post_init__` is implemented on a base class, which all other classes inherit, and so overloading it would require re-implementing the logic from it (and that's ignoring the fact that you also need to type the field with `InitVar` to even have it passed to `__post_init__` in the first place). I've created a proof of concept, shown below: ```py def initfn(fn, default=None): class Inner: def __set_name__(_, owner_cls, owner_name): old_setattr = getattr(owner_cls, "__setattr__") def __setattr__(self, attr_name, value): if attr_name == owner_name: # Bypass `__setattr__` self.__dict__[attr_name] = fac(value) else: old_setattr(self, attr_name, value) setattr(owner_cls, "__setattr__", __setattr__) def fac(value): if isinstance(value, Inner): return default return fn(value) return field(default=Inner()) ``` It makes use of the fact that providing `default` as an argument to `field` means it checks the value for a `__set_name__` function, and calls it with the class and field name as arguments. Overriding `__setattr__` is just used to catch when a value is being assigned to a field, and if that field's name matches the name given to `__set_name__`, it calls the function on the value, at sets the field to that instead. It can be used like so: ```py @dataclass class Foo: x: str = initfn(fn=chr, default="Z") f = Foo(65) f2 = Foo() f.x # "A" f2.x # "Z" ``` It adds a little overhead, especially with having to override `__setattr__` however, I believe it would have very little overhead if directly implemented in the dataclass library. Even in the case of being able to override one of the init functions, I still think it would be nice to have as a quality of life feature as I feel calling a function is too simple to want to override the functions, if that makes sense. Thanks. Dexter
What if, instead, the `init` parameter could accept either a boolean (as it does now) or a type? When given a type, that would mean that to created the property and accept the argument but pass the argument ti `__post_init__` rather than using it to initialize the property directly. The type passed to `init` would become the type hint for the argument.