[Python-Dev] Can we improve support for abstract base classes with desciptors (original) (raw)

Darren Dale dsdale24 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 13:45:57 CEST 2011

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:

for base in bases: for name in getattr(base, "abstractmethods", ()): # CHANGE 4: Using rpartition better tolerates weird naming in the metaclass # (weird naming in descriptors will still blow up in the earlier search for abstract names)

Could you provide an example of weird naming?

class C(object): ...   pass ... setattr(C, 'weird.name', staticmethod(int)) [...]

This is definitely something that could legitimately be dismissed as "well, don't do that then" (particularly since similarly weird names on the descriptors will still break). However, I also prefer the way partition based code reads over split-based code, so I still like the modified version.

Yes, I like your modified version as well. I just wanted to understand your concern, since it had never occurred to me to try something like "setattr(C, 'pathological.name', ...)".

Full tolerance for weird naming would require storing 2-tuples in abstractmethods which would cause a whole new set of problems and isn't worth the hassle.

I'm glad you feel that way.

I'll work on a patch that includes docs and unit tests and post it at http://bugs.python.org/issue11610. What do you think about deprecating abstractproperty, or removing it from the documentation?

Darren

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list