Great job, Martin! Thanks for seeing this through. :) -eric
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > This PEP is now accepted for inclusion in Python 3.6. Martin, > congratulations! Someone (not me) needs to review and commit your > changes, before September 12, when the 3.6 feature freeze goes into > effect (see https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0494/#schedule). > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Martin Teichmann > <lkb.teichm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Guido, Hi Nick, Hi list, >> >> so I just updated PEP 487, you can find it here: >> https://github.com/python/peps/pull/57 if it hasn't already been >> merged. There are no substantial updates there, I only updated the >> wording as suggested, and added some words about backwards >> compatibility as hinted by Nick. >> >> Greetings >> >> Martin >> >> 2016-07-14 17:47 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: >>> I just reviewed the changes you made, I like __set_name__(). I'll just >>> wait for your next update, incorporating Nick's suggestions. Regarding >>> who merges PRs to the PEPs repo, since you are the author the people >>> who merge don't pass any judgment on the changes (unless it doesn't >>> build cleanly or maybe if they see a typo). If you intend a PR as a >>> base for discussion you can add a comment saying e.g. "Don't merge >>> yet". If you call out @gvanrossum, GitHub will make sure I get a >>> message about it. >>> >>> I think the substantial discussion about the PEP should remain here in >>> python-dev; comments about typos, grammar and other minor editorial >>> issues can go on GitHub. Hope this part of the process makes sense! >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Martin Teichmann >>> <lkb.teichm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Guido, Hi list, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the nice review! I applied followed up your ideas and put >>>> it into a github pull request: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/53 >>>> >>>> Soon we'll be working there, until then, some responses to your comments: >>>> >>>>> I wonder if this should be renamed to __set_name__ or something else >>>>> that clarifies we're passing it the name of the attribute? The method >>>>> name __set_owner__ made me assume this is about the owning object >>>>> (which is often a useful term in other discussions about objects), >>>>> whereas it is really about telling the descriptor the name of the >>>>> attribute for which it applies. >>>> >>>> The name for this has been discussed a bit already, __set_owner__ was >>>> Nick's idea, and indeed, the owner is also set. Technically, >>>> __set_owner_and_name__ would be correct, but actually I like your idea >>>> of __set_name__. >>>> >>>>> That (inheriting type from type, and object from object) is very >>>>> confusing. Why not just define new classes e.g. NewType and NewObject >>>>> here, since it's just pseudo code anyway? >>>> >>>> Actually, it's real code. If you drop those lines at the beginning of >>>> the tests for the implementation (as I have done here: >>>> https://github.com/tecki/cpython/blob/pep487b/Lib/test/test_subclassinit.py), >>>> the test runs on older Pythons. >>>> >>>> But I see that my idea to formulate things here in Python was a bad >>>> idea, I will put the explanation first and turn the code into >>>> pseudo-code. >>>> >>>>>> def __init__(self, name, bases, ns, **kwargs): >>>>>> super().__init__(name, bases, ns) >>>>> >>>>> What does this definition of __init__ add? >>>> >>>> It removes the keyword arguments. I describe that in prose a bit down. >>>> >>>>>> class object: >>>>>> @classmethod >>>>>> def __init_subclass__(cls): >>>>>> pass >>>>>> >>>>>> class object(object, metaclass=type): >>>>>> pass >>>>> >>>>> Eek! Too many things named object. >>>> >>>> Well, I had to do that to make the tests run... I'll take that out. >>>> >>>>>> In the new code, it is not ``__init__`` that complains about keyword >>>>>> arguments, >>>>>> but ``__init_subclass__``, whose default implementation takes no >>>>>> arguments. In >>>>>> a classical inheritance scheme using the method resolution order, each >>>>>> ``__init_subclass__`` may take out it's keyword arguments until none are >>>>>> left, >>>>>> which is checked by the default implementation of ``__init_subclass__``. >>>>> >>>>> I called this out previously, and I am still a bit uncomfortable with >>>>> the backwards incompatibility here. But I believe what you describe >>>>> here is the compromise proposed by Nick, and if that's the case I have >>>>> peace with it. >>>> >>>> No, this is not Nick's compromise, this is my original. Nick just sent >>>> another mail to this list where he goes a bit more into the details, >>>> I'll respond to that about this topic. >>>> >>>> Greetings >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> P.S.: I just realized that my changes to the PEP were accepted by >>>> someone else than Guido. I am a bit surprised about that, but I guess >>>> this is how it works? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Python-Dev mailing list >>>> Python-Dev@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-Dev mailing list >> Python-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> Unsubscribe: >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ericsnowcurrently%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
