[issue39707] Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced, but documented as such

[Guido van Rossum]

Guido van Rossum  added the comment:

Josh, feel free to submit a PR (make sure it mentions this issue).

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue39707] Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced, but documented as such

[Josh Rosenberg]

Josh Rosenberg  added the comment:

If this is going to be closed as rejected, I think it still needs some 
improvement to the documentation. Right now, the docs for abstractproperty 
(deprecated in favor of combining property and abstractmethod) state:

"If only some components are abstract, only those components need to be updated 
to create a concrete property in a subclass:"

This heavily implies that if *all* components of the property are abstract, 
they must *all* be updated to create a concrete property on the subclass, when 
that is not the case (it's documenting a special way of overriding just one 
component by borrowing the base class, not a normal means of defining a 
property). If nothing else, mentioning this quirk in the docs seems like it 
would save confusion (e.g. 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65224767/python-abstract-property-cant-instantiate-abstract-class-with-abstract-me
 ).

--
assignee:  -> docs@python
components: +Documentation
nosy: +docs@python, josh.r
resolution: rejected -> 
status: closed -> open
title: Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced. -> 
Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced, but documented as 
such
versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.8, Python 3.9

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com