Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Hello, While I think this should not be "on by default", I don't see the harm in being able to opt-in to this behavior. I also figured spending a few minutes attempting to write this would be fun: https://gist.github.com/veloutin/2ec3e5246651f5de78442516d8e24fc1 François: sorry about the

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 29 November 2016 at 08:01, Chris Barker wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> >>> Also -- the ship has kinda sailed on this - maybe a @not_override would >>> make more sense. >>> >>> Isn't the goal to make sure you don't

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Also -- the ship has kinda sailed on this - maybe a @not_override would >> make more sense. >> >> Isn't the goal to make sure you don't accidentally override a method? >> saying "I know I'm overriding this" is less

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Guido van Rossum > wrote: > > >> They can, and they @override can be bypassed. I don't see that as a >> condemnation of @overload -- it just means that it's not

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > They can, and they @override can be bypassed. I don't see that as a > condemnation of @overload -- it just means that it's not perfect, which is > fine with me (given that we're talking about monkey-patching here). >

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Guido van Rossum > wrote: > > >> At calling time, the subclass' method will be found, and used, and the >>> search stops there -- no way to know if there is one with

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > At calling time, the subclass' method will be found, and used, and the >> search stops there -- no way to know if there is one with the same name >> further up the MRO. >> >> This is simply incompatable with a

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Am I missing something? Given Python's dynamic nature, there is simply no way to know if a method is overriding a superclass' method until it is called -- and, now that I think about it even then you don't know. At compile time, none of the superclasses may have the given method. At run time, a

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Le 26 nov. 2016 3:23 PM, "Nick Coghlan" a écrit : > > On 26 November 2016 at 22:24, France3 wrote: > > replace base object by default, and when all is checked for end user > > don't use the flag... > > > > Does it is possible? What do you think about? >

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 26 November 2016 at 22:24, France3 wrote: > replace base object by default, and when all is checked for end user > don't use the flag... > > Does it is possible? What do you think about? There's no need to do this in a base class, since it can be done via external

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Steven D'Aprano writes: > Sometimes I think Python-as-a-teaching-language and Python-as-a- > production-language are strongly opposed. I haven't found that to be the case. Linters are quite effective, as long as you discipline the students to use them. I don't think this check is in the

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 26 November 2016 at 21:15, Paul Moore wrote: > On 26 November 2016 at 07:16, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 26 November 2016 at 13:26, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> I think one reason why such proposals are unwelcome to experienced users

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 26 November 2016 at 07:16, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 26 November 2016 at 13:26, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I think one reason why such proposals are unwelcome to experienced users may >> be that when done right this is totally legitimate, and the

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 26 November 2016 at 13:26, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I think one reason why such proposals are unwelcome to experienced users may > be that when done right this is totally legitimate, and the requirement to > use an @override decorator is just making code more verbose with

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

This idea is being kicked around from forum to forum and nobody wants to have it. Here it's brought up from time to time and the response is usually "let a linter do it". In mypy (which is essentially a powerful linter) it was proposed ( https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/1888) and the

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

You can do it at run-time, if you so desire, without a measurable performance hit with a metaclass. Here's a hacky demo: https://gist.github.com/nicktimko/5f08d6adfa1dbe1319c3bfc715ec0aa4#file-override_guard-ipynb (Pedants: Any performance hit will be constant-time and probably less than a stray

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Similar or related issue recently open and quickly closed: http://bugs.python.org/issue28776 "Duplicate method names should be an error" In short, such job should be done by linters. I'm quite sure that many of them already implement such check. Victor

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Related thread https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-July/041095.html On Nov 23, 2016 20:30, "François Leblanc" wrote: > > I can imagine using a metaclass specialized witch can be activate or > desactivate but the cost of decorator > call still be here... > >

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

I can imagine using a metaclass specialized witch can be activate or desactivate but the cost of decorator call still be here... I think its will be a good improvement if we can provide a solution for this, and i ask myself if this can be set in interpreter with a flag to activate for exemple

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

On 23 November 2016 at 08:08, François Leblanc wrote: > It's why I'd prefer this integrate in language, but if there no way to get > it without performance cost > I will have a look to a pylint solution... The point here is that if there is a way to get it without a

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

It's why I'd prefer this integrate in language, but if there no way to get it without performance cost I will have a look to a pylint solution... 2016-11-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 Nick Timkovich : > I think you could implement this yourself with metaclasses and it wouldn't >

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

I think you could implement this yourself with metaclasses and it wouldn't have much (if any) performance hit per-call or per-instantiation (just a bit slower when creating the class definition). It's a bit heavy-handed-hand-holding–if you ask me–but if you want to do it, the language gives you

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

This is just a convenience utility that would impact performance. This kind of enhancements, in my opinion, should be taken care by the IDEs, not by the interpreters. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org

[Python-ideas] Decorator to avoid a mistake

Hi there, I like python easy extend class and reusse code, but sometime I overwrite involontary some functions or variables from parents. I think about a decorator to confirm overwrite is intended and put a warning if is not present. class A: def hello(self): print('Hello A')