+1 using unsafe_hash as a name addresses my concern. It's a good signal that there are caveats worth considering.
-gps On Sun, Feb 4, 2018, 9:50 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > Looks like this is turning into a major flamewar regardless of what I say. > :-( > > I really don't want to lose the ability to add a hash function to a > mutable dataclass by flipping a flag in the decorator. I'll explain below. > But I am fine if this flag has a name that clearly signals it's an unsafe > thing to do. > > I propose to replace the existing (as of 3.7.0b1) hash= keyword for the > @dataclass decorator with a simpler flag named unsafe_hash=. This would be > a simple bool (not a tri-state flag like the current hash=None|False|True). > The default would be False, and the behavior then would be to add a hash > function automatically only if it's safe (using the same rules as for > hash=None currently). With unsafe_hash=True, a hash function would always > be generated that takes all fields into account except those declared using > field(hash=False). If there's already a `def __hash__` in the function I > don't care what it does, maybe it should raise rather than quietly doing > nothing or quietly overwriting it. > > Here's my use case. > > A frozen class requires a lot of discipline, since you have to compute the > values of all fields before calling the constructor. A mutable class allows > other initialization patterns, e.g. manually setting some fields after the > instance has been constructed, or having a separate non-dunder init() > method. There may be good reasons for using these patterns, e.g. the object > may be part of a cycle (e.g. parent/child links in a tree). Or you may just > use one of these patterns because you're a pretty casual coder. Or you're > modeling something external. > > My point is that once you have one of those patterns in place, changing > your code to avoid them may be difficult. And yet your code may treat the > objects as essentially immutable after the initialization phase (e.g. a > parse tree). So if you create a dataclass and start coding like that for a > while, and much later you need to put one of these into a set or use it as > a dict key, switching to frozen=True may not be a quick option. And writing > a __hash__ method by hand may feel like a lot of busywork. So this is where > [unsafe_]hash=True would come in handy. > > I think naming the flag unsafe_hash should take away most objections, > since it will be clear that this is not a safe thing to do. People who > don't understand the danger are likely to copy a worse solution from > StackOverflow anyway. The docs can point to frozen=True and explain the > danger. > > -- > --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/greg%40krypto.org >
_______________________________________________ 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