https://bugs.python.org/issue33141 points out an interesting issue with
dataclasses and descriptors.
Given this code:
from dataclasses import *
class D:
"""A descriptor class that knows its name."""
def __set_name__(self, owner, name):
self.name = name
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if instance is not None:
return 1
return self
@dataclass
class C:
d: int = field(default=D(), init=False)
C.d.name is not set, because d.__set_name__ is never called. However, in
this case:
class X:
d: int = D()
X.d.name is set to 'd' when d.__set_name__ is called during type.__new__.
The problem of course, is that in the dataclass case, when class C is
initialized, and before the decorator is called, C.d is set to a Field()
object, not to D(). It's only when the dataclass decorator is run that I
change C.d from a Field to the value of D(). That means that the call to
d.__set_name__(C, 'd') is skipped. See
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0487/#implementation-details for
details on how type.__new__ works.
The only workaround I can think of is to emulate the part of PEP 487
where __set_name__ is called. I can do this from within the @dataclass
decorator when I'm initializing C.d. I'm not sure how great this
solution is, since it's moving the call from class creation time to
class decorator time. I think in 99+% of cases this would be fine, but
you could likely write code that depends on side effects of being called
during type.__new__.
Unless anyone has strong objections, I'm going to make the call to
__set_name__ in the @datacalss decorator. Since this is such a niche use
case, I don't feel strongly that it needs to be in today's beta release,
but if possible I'll get it in. I already have the patch written. And if
it does get in but the consensus is that it's a bad idea, we can back it
out.
Eric
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4