Josh Rosenberg <shadowranger+pyt...@gmail.com> added the comment:
If this is going to be closed as rejected, I think it still needs some improvement to the documentation. Right now, the docs for abstractproperty (deprecated in favor of combining property and abstractmethod) state: "If only some components are abstract, only those components need to be updated to create a concrete property in a subclass:" This heavily implies that if *all* components of the property are abstract, they must *all* be updated to create a concrete property on the subclass, when that is not the case (it's documenting a special way of overriding just one component by borrowing the base class, not a normal means of defining a property). If nothing else, mentioning this quirk in the docs seems like it would save confusion (e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65224767/python-abstract-property-cant-instantiate-abstract-class-with-abstract-me ). ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation nosy: +docs@python, josh.r resolution: rejected -> status: closed -> open title: Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced. -> Abstract property setter/deleter implementation not enforced, but documented as such versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.8, Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39707> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
