On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:46 PM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> For simple situations you can call super in the __post_init__ method and
> things will work fine:
>
But not for the OP's case: he wanted to pass extra parameters in -- and the
dataclass' __init__ won't accept extra arguments.
-CHB
> clas
Could there be a self.super that defaults to true; but could be set to a
callable?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:47 PM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> For simple situations you can call super in the __post_init__ method and
> things will work fine:
>
> class BaseClass:
> def __init__(self):
> prin
For simple situations you can call super in the __post_init__ method and
things will work fine:
class BaseClass:
def __init__(self):
print("class BaseClass")
@dataclass
class DataClass(BaseClass):
def __post_init__(self):
super().__init__()
print("class DataClass")
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 9:22 PM Neil Girdhar wrote:
> Cool, thanks for doing the relevant research.
>
For my part, I'd like to see an aeefort to move dataclasses forward. Now
that they are in the standard library, they do need to remain pretty
stable, but there's still room for extending them. B
I've implemented the class as a stand-alone module here:
https://github.com/swfarnsworth/dynamicdict
It could in theory be made significantly more concise if `defdict_type`
were the base for this class instead of `PyDict_Type`.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:32 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas <
p
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 18:44, Caleb Donovick wrote:
>
> I have built this data structure countless times. So I am in favor.
Maybe you can give a concrete example of what you need it for, then? I think
that would really help the proposal. Especially if your example needs a
per-instance rather t
