Ian Good <i...@icgood.net> added the comment:
Julian, That is certainly a workaround, however the behavior you are describing is inconsistent with PEP-544 in both word and intention. From the PEP: > To explicitly declare that a certain class implements a given protocol, it > can be used as a regular base class. It further describes the semantics of inheriting as "unchanged" from a "regular base class". If the semantics are "unchanged" then it should follow that super().__init__() would pass through the protocol to the object.__init__, just like a "regular base class" would if it does not override __init__. Furthermore, the intention of inheriting a Protocol as described in the PEP: > Static analysis tools are expected to automatically detect that a class > implements a given protocol. So while it's possible to subclass a protocol > explicitly, it's not necessary to do so for the sake of type-checking. The purpose of adding a Protocol sub-class as an explicit base class is thus only to improve static analysis, it should *not* to modify the runtime semantics. Consider the case where a package maintainer wants to enhance the flexibility of their types by transitioning from using an ABC to using structural sub-typing. That simple typing change would be a breaking change to the package consumers, who must now remove a super().__init__() call. Ian ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45081> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
