Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> added the comment:
I'm leaning toward accepting this on the condition that it only be invoked for dataclasses where __repr__ was the version generated by @dataclass. And also that it use the same fields that the generated __repr__ would use (basically skipping repr=False fields). Under those conditions, I don't see the harm. The reason I'm leaning toward acceptance is that we've talked about a better pprint for ages, and yet there's no activity that I can tell toward developing a replacement in the stdlib. pprint was a motivating example for PEP 443 (singledispatch), and that was accepted 8 years ago. I don't think we should have to wait forever to get better pprint for dataclasses. But I'm still not 100% decided, and I can be reasoned with! ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43080> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
