[Python-Dev] PEP 562

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

> On 11/15/2017 04:55 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Rationale
>>> =========
>>>
>>> [...] It would be convenient to simplify this
>>> procedure by recognizing ``__getattr__`` defined directly in a module
>>> that
>>> would act like a normal ``__getattr__`` method
>>>
>> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
>
>> Specification
>>> =============
>>>
>>> >> The ``__getattr__`` function at the module level should accept one
> argument
>
>> which is the name of an attribute and return the computed value or raise
>>> an ``AttributeError``::
>>>
>>
>>    def __getattr__(name: str) -> Any: ...
>>>
>>
>> This function will be called only if ``name`` is not found in the module
>>> through the normal attribute lookup.
>>>
>>
>> The Rationale (quoted in the beginning of this email) easily leaves a
>> different impression of this.​
>>
>
> I don't see how.  This is exactly the way normal __getattr__ works.
>
>
>
​Oh sorry, I think I put this email together too quickly. I was writing
down a bunch of thoughts I had earlier but hadn't written down.​ I think I
was mixing this up in my head with overriding __getitem__ for the module
namespace dict and __class_getitem__ from PEP 560, which only gets called
if the metaclass doesn't implement __getitem__ (IIRC).

But I did have another thought related to this. I was wondering whether the
lack of passing the module to the methods as `self` would harm future
attempts to generalize these ideas.

-- Koos

-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171115/48761bd5/attachment.html>