Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:58:36 -0000
From: Kevin Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Having a flat namespace (i.e., no hidden slots), and having
> all 'reachable' slots in a single list are really two
> separate issues. Right now, we have this situation:
> class Foo(object):
> __slots__ = ('a','b')
> class Bar(Foo):
> __slots__ = ('c','d')
> print bar.__slots__
> > ('c', 'd')
> print bar.__class__.__base__.__slots__
> > ('a', 'b')
> I content that bar.__slots__ should be:
> > ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd')
> I think somewhere along the line I may have mixed up which
> 'flatness' I was> talking about.
Um. Be aware that I'm not 100% sure about the "no hidden slots" point. I
only support it on the basis of acting the same as attributes. But I'm not
sure about it for attributes, either... (although I doubt it will ever
As for your contention over __slots__, I don't agree. I don't have a strong
view, but I feel that __slots__ is really only meant as a way of *defining*
the slots (and as such, may be replaced later by better syntax). Think of it
as write-only. Modifying it after the class is defined, or reading it,
aren't really well defined (and don't need to be). If slot definition had
been spelt "slot a" instead of "__slots__ = ['a']", you wouldn't necessarily
expect to have a readable attribute containing the list of slots...
> > The official, and supported, way is to use dir().
> I agree, but that "official" support has clear limitations.
I'm not sure what you mean.
> Right now, there are several examples in the Python standard
> library where we use obj.__dict__.keys() -- most significantly
> in pickle and cPickle.
But aren't we agreed that this is the source of a bug (that slots aren't
> There is also the vars(obj), which may be the better reflection
> method, though it currently doesn't know about slots.
Possibly you're right. This could easily be raised as a feature request. And
possibly even as a bug (vars() should know about slots).
> Naive, maybe, but saying "undocumented" is equivalent to "unsupported
> implementation detail" saves us from having to maintain backward
> compatibility and following the official Python deprecation process.
Equally, saying "it's not in the manual, so tough luck" is unreasonably
harsh. We need to be reasonable about this.
> > Do you have any reason why you would need to get a list of
> > only slots, or only dict-based attributes?
> Yes. Dict-based attributes always have values, while
> slot-based attributes can be unset and raise AttributeErrors
> when trying to access them.
Hmm. I could argue this a couple of ways. Slots should contain None when
unassigned (no AttributeErrors), or code should be (re-)written to cope with
AttributeError from things in dir(). I wouldn't argue it as "slots can raise
AttributeError, so we need to treat slots and dict-based attibutes
separately, in 2 passes".
> here is how I would handle pickling (excerpt from pickle.py):
> getstate = object.__getstate__
> except AttributeError:
> stuff = object.__dict__
> # added to support slots
> if hasattr(object.__slots__):
> for slot in object.__slots__:
> if hasattr(object, slot):
> stuff[slot] = getattr(object, slot)
> stuff = getstate()
> _keep_alive(stuff, memo)
Why not just change the line stuff = object.__dict__ to
stuff = [a for a in dir(object) if hasattr(object,a) and not
[The hasattr() gets rid of unbound slots - this may be another argument for
unbound slots containing None, and the callable() gets rid of methods]. Then
slots are covered, as well as any future non-dict-based attribute types.
If vars(obj) was fixed to include slots, like dir() was, then this could be
reduced to "stuff = vars(object)" (modulo protection against
> I'm not suggesting anything more incestuous and low-level than what is
> already done in many, many, many places. A larger, more-encompassing
> proposal is definitely welcome.
I'm not sure we need a larger proposal. A smaller one may work better. I'm
arguing above for
1. Make unbound slots return None rather than AttributeError
2. Make vars() return slots as well as dict-based attributes
3. Document __dict__ as legacy usage, not slots-aware
4. Fix bugs caused by use of the legacy __dict__ approach
5. Educate users in the new approaches which are slots-aware
(dir/vars, calling base class setattr, etc)
(and maybe a sixth, don't make __slots__ a reflection API - make it an
implementation detail, a bit like __dict__ is now viewed)
> Well, I've not found resounding agreement on the first two of
> my three basic issues/bugs I've raised so far:
> 1) Flat slot namespaces: Objects should not hiding slots
> when inherited by classes implementing the same slot name.
You're right - I'm not in "resounding" agreement. I think it's probably
better, for consistency with dict-based attributes, but I sort of wish it
wasn't. (The fact that I've not hit problems because of the equivalent
property of attributes means that I'm probably wrong, and attributes are
fine as they are, though.)
> 2) Flat slot descriptions: object.__slots__ being an
> immutable flat tuple of all slot names (including
> inherited ones), as opposed to being a potentially
> mutable sequence of only the slots defined by the most
> derived class.
This I disagree with. I think __slots__ should be immutable. But I'm happy
with "don't do that" as the way of implementing immutability, if that's what
Guido prefers. I definitely don't think __slots__ should return something
different when you read it than what you assigned to it in the first place
(which is what including inherited slots does). But I don't really think
people have any business reading __slots__ in any case (see my arguments
> 3) First class status for slot reflection: making slots picklable by
> default, returned by vars(object), and made part of
> other relevant reflection APIs and standard implementations.
I agree on this one.