Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gh-119180: Rename parameter to __annotate__ functions #124461

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra commented Sep 24, 2024

Larry Hastings pointed out that using an illegal parameter name makes
it impossible to use inspect.signature() on annotate functions.

Cross-ref python/peps#3993.

Larry Hastings pointed out that using an illegal parameter name makes
it impossible to use inspect.signature() on annotate functions.

Cross-ref python/peps#3993.
self.assertEqual(f.__name__, "__annotate__")

expected_sig = inspect.Signature(
[inspect.Parameter("__format__", inspect.Parameter.POSITIONAL_ONLY)]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

__format__ is already used in a different context, as a method name. Can this be confusing?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel it's unlikely to cause much confusion, since the name will very rarely show up to users (only if they introspect annotate functions, which is very unlikely to happen), and in a context that doesn't have anything to do with the __format__ method.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given that we are kind of picking a name out of thin air that we expect not to matter, it seems like we might as well avoid the potential for someone thinking this is related to __format__? Would there be an issue with just using _format? (I don't feel strongly about this at all.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should use a dundered name because dundered name are reserved to the implementation. Users could use a class named _format in their annotations.

The current PR has this behavior:

>>> def f(x: __format__): pass
... 
>>> f.__annotations__
{'x': 1}

I think with a dunder name we can handwave that away with "don't do that", but a user could reasonably use the name _format.

Still we could use a different name like __fmt__ or __annotate__ (I think Larry suggested the latter, but that name feels more confusing than __format__).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yeah, makes sense why it needs to be a dunder name. Given users should never have to type it, or likely see it, and the main thing we prefer to avoid is collisions with a user parameter, should we actually prefer something longer, like __annotation_format__?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants