Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> <snip>
> > The problem I came up with trying to spike out my
> > proposal last night is that there
> > doesn't seem to be anyway to implement it without creating infinite
> > recursion in the
> > issublcass call. If I make Orderable a real or virtual subclass
> > of ProtoOrderable and Orderable's __subclasshook__
> > or metaclass __subclasscheck__ (I tried both ways) tries to check whether
> > C is a subclass of ProtoOrderable, then an infinite recursion
> > occurs.
> > It wasn't immediately obvious to me why that is the case, but when I
> > thought about it
> > deeply, I can see why that must happen.
> > An alternative that I thought about previously but seems very smelly to me
> > for several
> > reasons is to have both Orderable and NonOrderable ABCs. In that
> > case, what should be done to prevent a class from being both orderable and
> > non-orderable
> > or figure out which should take precedence in that case?
> > As a meta-solution (wild-assed idea) what if metaclass registration could
> > accept
> > keyword arguments, similar to passing keyword arguments to a class
> > definition? That way,
> > a
> > single ABC (ProtoOrderable or whatever better name) could be a real or
> > virtual subclass that is explicitly orderable or non-orderable depending on
> > orderable=<True/False>.
> > I have been unable to implement the class hierarchy that I proposed, and I
> > think
> I've determined that it's just not a practical fit with how the virtual bas
> class
> mechanism works, so…
> Maybe just a single TotalOrdered or TotalOrderable ABC with a
> register_explicit_only method. The __subclasshook__ method would
> skip the rich comparison methods check and return NotImplemented for any
> class registered using register_explicit_only (or any of its true
> subclasses).
> The only weird edge case in the above is that is someone registers another
> ABC using
> TotalOrdered.register_explicit_only and uses that as a virtual base class of
> something else, the register_explicit_only registration will not apply to the
> virtual subclass. I'm thinking that's completely acceptable as a known
> limitation if
> documented?
Code spike of that idea:
```
from abc import ABCMeta
from weakref import WeakSet
class TotallyOrderable(metaclass=ABCMeta):
_explicit_only_registry = WeakSet()
@classmethod
def register_explicit_only(cls, C):
if cls is not TotallyOrderable:
raise NotImplementedError(
f"{cls.__name__} does not implement 'register_explicit_only'")
cls._explicit_only_registry.add(C)
@classmethod
def __subclasshook__(cls, C):
if cls is not TotallyOrderable:
return NotImplemented
for B in C.__mro__:
if B in cls._explicit_only_registry:
return NotImplemented
return cls._check_overrides_rich_comparison_methods(C)
@classmethod
def _check_overrides_rich_comparison_methods(cls, C):
mro = C.__mro__
for method in ('__lt__', '__le__', '__gt__', '__ge__'):
for B in mro:
if B is not object and method in B.__dict__:
if B.__dict__[method] is None:
return NotImplemented
break
else:
return NotImplemented
return True
```
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2OZBPQPYIFFG2E6BS2EYLDJF2QP5FRTG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
