Create PEP 487 from Martin Teichmann's submission
This commit is contained in:
parent
dc11fd5255
commit
c568e8c5ab
|
@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
|
|||
PEP: 487
|
||||
Title: Simpler customisation of class creation
|
||||
Version: $Revision$
|
||||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||||
Author: Martin Teichmann <lkb.teichmann@gmail.com>,
|
||||
Status: Draft
|
||||
Type: Standards Track
|
||||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||||
Created: 27-Feb-2015
|
||||
Python-Version: 3.5
|
||||
Post-History: 27-Feb-2015
|
||||
Replaces: 422
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract
|
||||
========
|
||||
|
||||
Currently, customising class creation requires the use of a custom metaclass.
|
||||
This custom metaclass then persists for the entire lifecycle of the class,
|
||||
creating the potential for spurious metaclass conflicts.
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP proposes to instead support a wide range of customisation
|
||||
scenarios through a new ``namespace`` parameter in the class header, and
|
||||
a new ``__init_subclass__`` hook in the class body.
|
||||
|
||||
The new mechanism should be easier to understand and use than
|
||||
implementing a custom metaclass, and thus should provide a gentler
|
||||
introduction to the full power Python's metaclass machinery.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Connection to other PEP
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
|
||||
This is a competing proposal to PEP 422 by Nick Coughlan and Daniel Urban.
|
||||
It shares both most of the PEP text and proposed code, but has major
|
||||
differences in how to achieve its goals.
|
||||
|
||||
Background
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
For an already created class ``cls``, the term "metaclass" has a clear
|
||||
meaning: it is the value of ``type(cls)``.
|
||||
|
||||
*During* class creation, it has another meaning: it is also used to refer to
|
||||
the metaclass hint that may be provided as part of the class definition.
|
||||
While in many cases these two meanings end up referring to one and the same
|
||||
object, there are two situations where that is not the case:
|
||||
|
||||
* If the metaclass hint refers to an instance of ``type``, then it is
|
||||
considered as a candidate metaclass along with the metaclasses of all of
|
||||
the parents of the class being defined. If a more appropriate metaclass is
|
||||
found amongst the candidates, then it will be used instead of the one
|
||||
given in the metaclass hint.
|
||||
* Otherwise, an explicit metaclass hint is assumed to be a factory function
|
||||
and is called directly to create the class object. In this case, the final
|
||||
metaclass will be determined by the factory function definition. In the
|
||||
typical case (where the factory functions just calls ``type``, or, in
|
||||
Python 3.3 or later, ``types.new_class``) the actual metaclass is then
|
||||
determined based on the parent classes.
|
||||
|
||||
It is notable that only the actual metaclass is inherited - a factory
|
||||
function used as a metaclass hook sees only the class currently being
|
||||
defined, and is not invoked for any subclasses.
|
||||
|
||||
In Python 3, the metaclass hint is provided using the ``metaclass=Meta``
|
||||
keyword syntax in the class header. This allows the ``__prepare__`` method
|
||||
on the metaclass to be used to create the ``locals()`` namespace used during
|
||||
execution of the class body (for example, specifying the use of
|
||||
``collections.OrderedDict`` instead of a regular ``dict``).
|
||||
|
||||
In Python 2, there was no ``__prepare__`` method (that API was added for
|
||||
Python 3 by PEP 3115). Instead, a class body could set the ``__metaclass__``
|
||||
attribute, and the class creation process would extract that value from the
|
||||
class namespace to use as the metaclass hint. There is `published code`_ that
|
||||
makes use of this feature.
|
||||
|
||||
Another new feature in Python 3 is the zero-argument form of the ``super()``
|
||||
builtin, introduced by PEP 3135. This feature uses an implicit ``__class__``
|
||||
reference to the class being defined to replace the "by name" references
|
||||
required in Python 2. Just as code invoked during execution of a Python 2
|
||||
metaclass could not call methods that referenced the class by name (as the
|
||||
name had not yet been bound in the containing scope), similarly, Python 3
|
||||
metaclasses cannot call methods that rely on the implicit ``__class__``
|
||||
reference (as it is not populated until after the metaclass has returned
|
||||
control to the class creation machinery).
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, when a class uses a custom metaclass, it can pose additional
|
||||
challenges to the use of multiple inheritance, as a new class cannot
|
||||
inherit from parent classes with unrelated metaclasses. This means that
|
||||
it is impossible to add a metaclass to an already published class: such
|
||||
an addition is a backwards incompatible change due to the risk of metaclass
|
||||
conflicts.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposal
|
||||
========
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP proposes that a new mechanism to customise class creation be
|
||||
added to Python 3.5 that meets the following criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Integrates nicely with class inheritance structures (including mixins and
|
||||
multiple inheritance),
|
||||
2. Integrates nicely with the implicit ``__class__`` reference and
|
||||
zero-argument ``super()`` syntax introduced by PEP 3135,
|
||||
3. Can be added to an existing base class without a significant risk of
|
||||
introducing backwards compatibility problems, and
|
||||
4. Restores the ability for class namespaces to have some influence on the
|
||||
class creation process (above and beyond populating the namespace itself),
|
||||
but potentially without the full flexibility of the Python 2 style
|
||||
``__metaclass__`` hook.
|
||||
|
||||
Those goals can be achieved by adding two functionalities:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A ``__init_subclass__`` hook that initializes all subclasses of a
|
||||
given class, and
|
||||
2. A new keyword parameter ``namespace`` to the class creation statement,
|
||||
that gives an initialization of the namespace.
|
||||
|
||||
As an example, the first proposal looks as follows::
|
||||
|
||||
class SpamBase:
|
||||
# this is implicitly a @classmethod
|
||||
def __init_subclass__(cls, ns, **kwargs):
|
||||
# This is invoked after a subclass is created, but before
|
||||
# explicit decorators are called.
|
||||
# The usual super() mechanisms are used to correctly support
|
||||
# multiple inheritance.
|
||||
# ns is the classes namespace
|
||||
# **kwargs are the keyword arguments to the subclasses'
|
||||
# class creation statement
|
||||
super().__init_subclass__(cls, ns, **kwargs)
|
||||
|
||||
class Spam(SpamBase):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
# the new hook is called on Spam
|
||||
|
||||
To simplify the cooperative multiple inheritance case, ``object`` will gain
|
||||
a default implementation of the hook that does nothing::
|
||||
|
||||
class object:
|
||||
def __init_subclass__(cls, ns):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
Note that this method has no keyword arguments, meaning that all
|
||||
methods which are more specialized have to process all keyword
|
||||
arguments.
|
||||
|
||||
This general proposal is not a new idea (it was first suggested for
|
||||
inclusion in the language definition `more than 10 years ago`_, and a
|
||||
similar mechanism has long been supported by `Zope's ExtensionClass`_),
|
||||
but the situation has changed sufficiently in recent years that
|
||||
the idea is worth reconsidering for inclusion.
|
||||
|
||||
The second part of the proposal is to have a ``namespace`` keyword
|
||||
argument to the class declaration statement. If present, its value
|
||||
will be called without arguments to initialize a subclasses
|
||||
namespace, very much like a metaclass ``__prepare__`` method would
|
||||
do.
|
||||
|
||||
In addition, the introduction of the metaclass ``__prepare__`` method
|
||||
in PEP 3115 allows a further enhancement that was not possible in
|
||||
Python 2: this PEP also proposes that ``type.__prepare__`` be updated
|
||||
to accept a factory function as a ``namespace`` keyword-only argument.
|
||||
If present, the value provided as the ``namespace`` argument will be
|
||||
called without arguments to create the result of ``type.__prepare__``
|
||||
instead of using a freshly created dictionary instance. For example,
|
||||
the following will use an ordered dictionary as the class namespace::
|
||||
|
||||
class OrderedBase(namespace=collections.OrderedDict):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
class Ordered(OrderedBase):
|
||||
# cls.__dict__ is still a read-only proxy to the class namespace,
|
||||
# but the underlying storage is an OrderedDict instance
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP, along with the existing ability to use __prepare__ to share a
|
||||
single namespace amongst multiple class objects, highlights a possible
|
||||
issue with the attribute lookup caching: when the underlying mapping is
|
||||
updated by other means, the attribute lookup cache is not invalidated
|
||||
correctly (this is a key part of the reason class ``__dict__`` attributes
|
||||
produce a read-only view of the underlying storage).
|
||||
|
||||
Since the optimisation provided by that cache is highly desirable,
|
||||
the use of a preexisting namespace as the class namespace may need to
|
||||
be declared as officially unsupported (since the observed behaviour is
|
||||
rather strange when the caches get out of sync).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Key Benefits
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Easier use of custom namespaces for a class
|
||||
-------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Currently, to use a different type (such as ``collections.OrderedDict``) for
|
||||
a class namespace, or to use a pre-populated namespace, it is necessary to
|
||||
write and use a custom metaclass. With this PEP, using a custom namespace
|
||||
becomes as simple as specifying an appropriate factory function in the
|
||||
class header.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Easier inheritance of definition time behaviour
|
||||
-----------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Understanding Python's metaclasses requires a deep understanding of
|
||||
the type system and the class construction process. This is legitimately
|
||||
seen as challenging, due to the need to keep multiple moving parts (the code,
|
||||
the metaclass hint, the actual metaclass, the class object, instances of the
|
||||
class object) clearly distinct in your mind. Even when you know the rules,
|
||||
it's still easy to make a mistake if you're not being extremely careful.
|
||||
|
||||
Understanding the proposed implicit class initialization hook only requires
|
||||
ordinary method inheritance, which isn't quite as daunting a task. The new
|
||||
hook provides a more gradual path towards understanding all of the phases
|
||||
involved in the class definition process.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reduced chance of metaclass conflicts
|
||||
-------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
One of the big issues that makes library authors reluctant to use metaclasses
|
||||
(even when they would be appropriate) is the risk of metaclass conflicts.
|
||||
These occur whenever two unrelated metaclasses are used by the desired
|
||||
parents of a class definition. This risk also makes it very difficult to
|
||||
*add* a metaclass to a class that has previously been published without one.
|
||||
|
||||
By contrast, adding an ``__init_subclass__`` method to an existing type poses
|
||||
a similar level of risk to adding an ``__init__`` method: technically, there
|
||||
is a risk of breaking poorly implemented subclasses, but when that occurs,
|
||||
it is recognised as a bug in the subclass rather than the library author
|
||||
breaching backwards compatibility guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Integrates cleanly with \PEP 3135
|
||||
---------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Given that the method is called on already existing classes, the new
|
||||
hook will be able to freely invoke class methods that rely on the
|
||||
implicit ``__class__`` reference introduced by PEP 3135, including
|
||||
methods that use the zero argument form of ``super()``.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Replaces many use cases for dynamic setting of ``__metaclass__``
|
||||
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
For use cases that don't involve completely replacing the defined
|
||||
class, Python 2 code that dynamically set ``__metaclass__`` can now
|
||||
dynamically set ``__init_subclass__`` instead. For more advanced use
|
||||
cases, introduction of an explicit metaclass (possibly made available
|
||||
as a required base class) will still be necessary in order to support
|
||||
Python 3.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
A path of introduction into Python
|
||||
==================================
|
||||
|
||||
Most of the benefits of this PEP can already be implemented using
|
||||
a simple metaclass. For the ``__init_subclass__`` hook this works
|
||||
all the way down to python 2.7, while the namespace needs python 3.0
|
||||
to work. Such a class has been `uploaded to PyPI`_.
|
||||
|
||||
The only drawback of such a metaclass are the mentioned problems with
|
||||
metaclasses and multiple inheritance. Two classes using such a
|
||||
metaclass can only be combined, if they use exactly the same such
|
||||
metaclass. This fact calls for the inclusion of such a class into the
|
||||
standard library, let's call it ``SubclassMeta``, with a base class
|
||||
using it called ``SublassInit``. Once all users use this standard
|
||||
library metaclass, classes from different packages can easily be
|
||||
combined.
|
||||
|
||||
But still such classes cannot be easily combined with other classes
|
||||
using other metaclasses. Authors of metaclasses should bear that in
|
||||
mind and inherit from the standard metaclass if it seems useful
|
||||
for users of the metaclass to add more functionality. Ultimately,
|
||||
if the need for combining with other metaclasses is strong enough,
|
||||
the proposed functionality may be introduced into python's ``type``.
|
||||
|
||||
Those arguments strongly hint to the following procedure to include
|
||||
the proposed functionality into python:
|
||||
|
||||
1. The metaclass implementing this proposal is put onto PyPI, so that
|
||||
it can be used and scrutinized.
|
||||
2. Once the code is properly mature, it can be added to the python
|
||||
standard library. There should be a new module called
|
||||
``metaclass`` which collects tools for metaclass authors, as well
|
||||
as a documentation of the best practices of how to write
|
||||
metaclasses.
|
||||
3. If the need of combining this metaclass with other metaclasses is
|
||||
strong enough, it may be included into python itself.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
New Ways of Using Classes
|
||||
=========================
|
||||
|
||||
This proposal has many usecases like the following. In the examples,
|
||||
we still inherit from the ``SubclassInit`` base class. This would
|
||||
become unnecessary once this PEP is included in Python directly.
|
||||
|
||||
Subclass registration
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Especially when writing a plugin system, one likes to register new
|
||||
subclasses of a plugin baseclass. This can be done as follows::
|
||||
|
||||
class PluginBase(SubclassInit):
|
||||
subclasses = []
|
||||
|
||||
def __init_subclass__(cls, ns, **kwargs):
|
||||
super().__init_subclass__(ns, **kwargs)
|
||||
cls.subclasses.append(cls)
|
||||
|
||||
One should note that this also works nicely as a mixin class.
|
||||
|
||||
Trait descriptors
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
There are many designs of python descriptors in the wild which, for
|
||||
example, check boundaries of values. Often those "traits" need some support
|
||||
of a metaclass to work. This is how this would look like with this
|
||||
PEP::
|
||||
|
||||
class Trait:
|
||||
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
|
||||
return instance.__dict__[self.key]
|
||||
|
||||
def __set__(self, instance, value):
|
||||
instance.__dict__[self.key] = value
|
||||
|
||||
class Int(Trait):
|
||||
def __set__(self, instance, value):
|
||||
# some boundary check code here
|
||||
super().__set__(instance, value)
|
||||
|
||||
class HasTraits(SubclassInit):
|
||||
def __init_subclass__(cls, ns, **kwargs):
|
||||
super().__init_subclass__(ns, **kwargs)
|
||||
for k, v in ns.items():
|
||||
if isinstance(v, Trait):
|
||||
v.key = k
|
||||
|
||||
The new ``namespace`` keyword in the class header enables a number of
|
||||
interesting options for controlling the way a class is initialised,
|
||||
including some aspects of the object models of both Javascript and Ruby.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Order preserving classes
|
||||
------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
::
|
||||
|
||||
class OrderedClassBase(namespace=collections.OrderedDict):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
class OrderedClass(OrderedClassBase):
|
||||
a = 1
|
||||
b = 2
|
||||
c = 3
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Prepopulated namespaces
|
||||
-----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
::
|
||||
|
||||
seed_data = dict(a=1, b=2, c=3)
|
||||
class PrepopulatedClass(namespace=seed_data.copy):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Cloning a prototype class
|
||||
-------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
::
|
||||
|
||||
class NewClass(namespace=Prototype.__dict__.copy):
|
||||
pass
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Rejected Design Options
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Calling the hook on the class itself
|
||||
------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Adding an ``__autodecorate__`` hook that would be called on the class
|
||||
itself was the proposed idea of PEP 422. Most examples work the same
|
||||
way or even better if the hook is called on the subclass. In general,
|
||||
it is much easier to explicitly call the hook on the class in which it
|
||||
is defined (to opt-in to such a behavior) than to opt-out, meaning
|
||||
that one does not want the hook to be called on the class it is
|
||||
defined in.
|
||||
|
||||
This becomes most evident if the class in question is designed as a
|
||||
mixin: it is very unlikely that the code of the mixin is to be
|
||||
executed for the mixin class itself, as it is not supposed to be a
|
||||
complete class on its own.
|
||||
|
||||
The original proposal also made major changes in the class
|
||||
initialization process, rendering it impossible to back-port the
|
||||
proposal to older python versions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Other variants of calling the hook
|
||||
----------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Other names for the hook were presented, namely ``__decorate__`` or
|
||||
``__autodecorate__``. This proposal opts for ``__init_subclass__`` as
|
||||
it is very close to the ``__init__`` method, just for the subclass,
|
||||
while it is not very close to decorators, as it does not return the
|
||||
class.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Requiring an explicit decorator on ``__init_subclass__``
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
One could require the explicit use of ``@classmethod`` on the
|
||||
``__init_subclass__`` decorator. It was made implicit since there's no
|
||||
sensible interpretation for leaving it out, and that case would need
|
||||
to be detected anyway in order to give a useful error message.
|
||||
|
||||
This decision was reinforced after noticing that the user experience of
|
||||
defining ``__prepare__`` and forgetting the ``@classmethod`` method
|
||||
decorator is singularly incomprehensible (particularly since PEP 3115
|
||||
documents it as an ordinary method, and the current documentation doesn't
|
||||
explicitly say anything one way or the other).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Passing in the namespace directly rather than a factory function
|
||||
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
At one point, PEP 422 proposed that the class namespace be passed
|
||||
directly as a keyword argument, rather than passing a factory function.
|
||||
However, this encourages an unsupported behaviour (that is, passing the
|
||||
same namespace to multiple classes, or retaining direct write access
|
||||
to a mapping used as a class namespace), so the API was switched to
|
||||
the factory function version.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Possible Extensions
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Some extensions to this PEP are imaginable, which are postponed to a
|
||||
later pep:
|
||||
|
||||
* A ``__new_subclass__`` method could be defined which acts like a
|
||||
``__new__`` for classes. This would be very close to
|
||||
``__autodecorate__`` in PEP 422.
|
||||
* ``__subclasshook__`` could be made a classmethod in a class instead
|
||||
of a method in the metaclass.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
.. _published code:
|
||||
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-June/119878.html
|
||||
|
||||
.. _more than 10 years ago:
|
||||
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-November/018651.html
|
||||
|
||||
.. _Zope's ExtensionClass:
|
||||
http://docs.zope.org/zope_secrets/extensionclass.html
|
||||
|
||||
.. _uploaded to PyPI:
|
||||
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/metaclass
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
..
|
||||
Local Variables:
|
||||
mode: indented-text
|
||||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||||
sentence-end-double-space: t
|
||||
fill-column: 70
|
||||
coding: utf-8
|
||||
End:
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue