[Python-Dev] PEP 557: Data Classes

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Eric V. Smith <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:
> On 9/10/17 11:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> A few quick comments:
>>
>> Why do you even have a hash= argument on individual fields? For the
>> whole class, I can imagine you might want to explicitly mark a whole
>> class as unhashable, but it seems like the only thing you can do with
>> the field-level hash= argument is to create a class where the __hash__
>> and __eq__ take different fields into account, and why would you ever
>> want that?
>
>
> The use case is that you have a cache, or something similar, that doesn't
> affect the object identity.

But wouldn't this just be field(cmp=False), no need to fiddle with hash=?

>> Though honestly I can see a reasonable argument for removing the
>> class-level hash= option too. And even if you keep it you might want to
>> error on some truly nonsensical options like defining __hash__ without
>> __eq__. (Also watch out that Python's usual rule about defining __eq__
>> blocking the inheritance of __hash__ does not kick in if __eq__ is added
>> after the class is created.)
>>
>> I've sometimes wished that attrs let me control whether it generated
>> equality methods (eq/ne/hash) separately from ordering methods
>> (lt/gt/...). Maybe the cmp= argument should take an enum with options
>> none/equality-only/full?
>
>
> Yeah, I've thought about this, too. But I don't have any use case in mind,
> and if it hasn't come up with attrs, then I'm reluctant to break new ground
> here.

https://github.com/python-attrs/attrs/issues/170

>From that thread, it feels like part of the problem is that it's
awkward to encode this using only boolean arguments, but they're sort
of stuck with that for backcompat with how they originally defined
cmp=, hence my suggestion to consider making it an enum from the start
:-).

>> The "why not attrs" section kind of reads like "because it's too popular
>> and useful"?
>
>
> I'll add some words to that section, probably focused on typing
> compatibility. My general feeling is that attrs has some great design
> decisions, but goes a little too far (e.g., conversions, validations). As
> with most things we add, I'm trying to be as minimalist as possible, while
> still being widely useful and allowing 3rd party extensions and future
> features.

If the question is "given that we're going to add something to the
stdlib, why shouldn't that thing be attrs?" then I guess it's
sufficient to say "because the attrs developers didn't want it". But I
think the PEP should also address the question "why are we adding
something to the stdlib, instead of just recommending people install
attrs".

-n