[Python-Dev] PEP 520: Ordered Class Definition Namespace

Eric Snow ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
Fri Jun 10 16:25:10 EDT 2016

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2016 at 09:42, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That restriction would be comparable to what we do with __slots__ today:
>>>     >>> class C:
>>>     ...     __slots__ = 1
>>>     ...
>>>     Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>>>     TypeError: 'int' object is not iterable
>> Are you suggesting that we require it be a tuple of identifiers (or
>> None) and raise TypeError otherwise, similar to __slots__?  The
>> difference is that __slots__ has specific type requirements that do
>> not apply to __definition_order__, as well as a different purpose.
>> __definition_order__ is about preserving definition-type info that we
>> are currently throwing away.
> If we don't enforce the tuple-of-identifiers restriction at type
> creation time, everyone that *doesn't* make it a tuple-of-identifiers
> is likely to have a subtle compatibility bug with class decorators and
> other code that assume the default tuple-of-identifiers format is the
> only possible format (aside from None). To put it in PEP 484 terms:
> regardless of what the PEP says, people are going to assume the type
> of __definition_order__ is Optional[Tuple[str]], as that's going to
> cover almost all class definitions they encounter.
> It makes sense to me to give class definitions and metaclasses the
> opportunity to change the *content* of the definition order: "Use
> these names in this order, not the names and order you would have
> calculated by default".
> It doesn't make sense to me to give them an opportunity to change the
> *form* of the definition order, since that makes it incredibly
> difficult to consume correctly: "Sure, it's *normally* a
> tuple-of-identifiers, but it *might* be a dictionary, or a complex
> number, or a set, or whatever the class author decided to make it".
> By contrast, if the class machinery enforces Optional[Tuple[str]],
> then it becomes a lot easier to consume reliably, and anyone violating
> the constraint gets an immediate exception when defining the offending
> class, rather than a potentially obscure exception from a class
> decorator or other piece of code that assumes __definition_order__
> could only be None or a tuple of strings.

That makes sense.  I'll adjust the PEP (and the implementation).


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list