On 24. 04. 22 23:05, Eric Traut wrote:
Petr, thanks for the update. The SC recommendations make sense.
Alex, I understand your point, but keep in mind that PEPs are about standardization and consensus. While we don't want to stifle innovation, we also want to encourage conformity unless there's a good reason for divergent approaches. Without standards, it is very difficult to provide good tooling.
Many of the features mentioned in the "Rejected Ideas" section of PEP 681 are vestigial or are used relatively infrequently. IMO, there should be a relatively high bar for a feature becoming "standardized" in a programming language, standard library, or type system. As you point out, the stdlib dataclass continues to evolve — in some cases influenced by innovations that originated in these other dataclass-esque libraries. I think this is a really healthy approach. As new innovations meet the bar for standardization, they can flow into stdlib dataclass, and dataclass_transform will automatically inherit these additions.
I'd put it differently: I see dataclasses as the *lowest common denominator* rather than the current best way to do things. As a lowest common denominator it's a perfect target for standardization, but it cannot cover all use cases. In particular, the "converters" feature in attrs is very useful, and far from vestigial -- even if dataclasses might never include it.