Steve Jorgensen wrote: > Based on the conversations stemming from my previous post, it is clear that > the topic > was too implementation-specific. It is not clear whether dunder methods are > an appropriate > component of the solution (they might or might not be). > Also, it presumably makes sense to start by looking at prior art rather than > inventing > from scratch.
There has been some argument regarding whether objects should say how to present themselves "prettily". I think a case can be made either way, but in either case, it makes sense that it should be easy to override the representation for an object type without subclassing or monkey-patching it. Also, it might make sense not to clutter up the dunder-method space for all kinds of objects with this kind of thing. Without using dunder methods, it could still be possible for any body of code to provide default special-representational rules for its objects by registering hooks. Also, as a hybrid-approach, it could be that the defaults for representation are determined first by looking at a default registry and then falling back to dunder methods if present. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/EMXMEPFSXTUMFGY2LN5UHWCJYSVBKEEK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
