bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #11263

Windsooon · 2018-12-20T13:54:15Z

https://bugs.python.org/issue35105

terryjreedy

That you for proposing something specific to chew on. I think spelling, grammar, and content all need tweaking.

Doc/library/functions.rst

bedevere-bot · 2018-12-20T21:30:55Z

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

zhangyangyu · 2018-12-21T03:37:07Z

Do we really need to mention this?

terryjreedy · 2018-12-21T03:55:15Z

That discussion is on the issue.

rhettinger

I don't think we can mark this as an implementation detail for setattr(). The details are downstream and determined by the target object, not by setattr itself.

Suggested wording:

Note, setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.
Whether this succeeds and what its affect is is determined by the target object.
If an object's class defines `__slots__`, the attribute may not be writeable.
If an object's class defines property with a setter method, the *setattr()*
will trigger the setter method which may or may not actually write the attribute.
For objects that have a regular dictionary (which is the typical case), the
*setattr()* call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary
including keys that aren't valid identifiers -- for example setattr(a, '1', 'one')
will be the equivalent of vars()['1'] ='one'.

This issue has little to do with setattr() and is more related to the fact that instance dictionaries can hold any valid key. In a way, it is no different than a user writing a.__dict__['1'] = 'one'. That has always been allowed and the __dict__ attribute is documented as writeable, so a user is also allowed to write `a.dict = {'1': 'one'}.

In short, we can talk about this in the setattr() docs but it isn't really a setattr() issue. Also, the behavior is effectively guaranteed by the other things users are allowed to do, so there is no merit in marking this as an implementation detail. Non-identifier keys can make it into an instance dictionary via multiple paths that are guaranteed to work.

terryjreedy · 2018-12-24T11:14:18Z

I agree with Raymond's revision. Note that it would replace the entire proposed addition, including the impl-detail directive. By adding more 'meat', it makes an addition more worthwhile.

csabella

The whole note needs to be indented for proper alignment.

Doc/library/functions.rst

JulienPalard · 2019-09-11T10:51:55Z

Hi @Windsooon thanks for this PR! Would you have some time to integrate Cheryl comments?

Windsooon · 2019-09-11T23:53:52Z

I just updated it. Thank you @csabella

JulienPalard

LGTM with nits (all can be accepted right from github).

JulienPalard · 2019-09-12T13:02:01Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

@@ -1388,6 +1388,17 @@ are always available.  They are listed here in alphabetical order.
   object allows it.  For example, ``setattr(x, 'foobar', 123)`` is equivalent to
   ``x.foobar = 123``.

+.. note::
+
+   setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.


Suggested change

setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.

``setattr()`` attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.

JulienPalard · 2019-09-12T13:02:11Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+
+   setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.
+   Whether this succeeds and the effect it has determined by the target object.
+   If an object's class defines `__slots__`, the attribute may not be writeable.


Suggested change

If an object's class defines `__slots__`, the attribute may not be writeable.

If an object's class defines ``__slots__``, the attribute may not be writeable.

JulienPalard · 2019-09-12T13:03:25Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+   For objects that have a regular dictionary (which is the typical case), the
+   *setattr()* call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary
+   including keys that aren't valid identifiers -- for example ``setattr(a, '1', 'one')``
+   will be the equivalent of ``vars()['1'] ='one'``.


Suggested change

will be the equivalent of ``vars()['1'] ='one'``.

will be the equivalent of ``vars()['1'] = 'one'``.

csabella · 2020-01-12T13:42:00Z

@Windsooon, please address the review comments from Julien. Thanks!

AlexWaygood · 2022-04-17T12:18:07Z

Changes were requested on this PR by a core dev over two years ago, but have not been applied. There is also now a merge conflict. I am therefore closing this PR.

@Windsooon, if you're still interested in working on this, feel free to open a new PR. Alternatively, ping me, and I'll happily reopen the PR. Thanks! 🙂

Windsooon · 2022-04-21T09:32:41Z

@AlexWaygood I'm so sorry for missing the notification from CPython, I will catch up in a few weeks.

AlexWaygood · 2022-04-21T10:10:11Z

@Windsooon no worries!

slateny · 2022-10-10T06:22:02Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

@@ -1388,6 +1388,17 @@ are always available.  They are listed here in alphabetical order.
   object allows it.  For example, ``setattr(x, 'foobar', 123)`` is equivalent to
   ``x.foobar = 123``.

+.. note::
+
+   setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.


(in addition to the above)

Suggested change

setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.

setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attribute/value pair.

or

Suggested change

setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.

setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attribute-value pair.

slateny · 2022-10-10T06:22:17Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+.. note::
+
+   setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.
+   Whether this succeeds and the effect it has determined by the target object.


Suggested change

Whether this succeeds and the effect it has determined by the target object.

Whether this succeeds and the effect it has is determined by the target object.

slateny · 2022-10-11T01:25:29Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+   setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.
+   Whether this succeeds and the effect it has determined by the target object.
+   If an object's class defines `__slots__`, the attribute may not be writeable.
+   If an object's class defines :class:`property` with a setter method, the *setattr()*


*setattr()* -> `setattr()` here and below (I think * is commonly used for parameters)

slateny · 2022-10-11T01:26:11Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+   will trigger the setter method which may or may not actually write the attribute.
+   For objects that have a regular dictionary (which is the typical case), the
+   *setattr()* call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary
+   including keys that aren't valid identifiers -- for example ``setattr(a, '1', 'one')``


Would you happen to have an example of this behavior? I'm not quite following what it's doing (how a turns into vars())

slateny · 2022-10-11T01:26:38Z

Doc/library/functions.rst

+   If an object's class defines :class:`property` with a setter method, the *setattr()*
+   will trigger the setter method which may or may not actually write the attribute.
+   For objects that have a regular dictionary (which is the typical case), the
+   *setattr()* call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary


Suggested change

*setattr()* call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary

*setattr()* call can make any string-keyed update allowed by the dictionary

AlexWaygood · 2022-10-11T09:09:51Z

I think this PR has now been superseded by #96454

the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Dec 20, 2018

bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels Dec 20, 2018

Windsooon force-pushed the bpo-35105 branch from b03e752 to a0e8550 Compare December 20, 2018 13:59

terryjreedy requested a review from vstinner December 20, 2018 21:30

terryjreedy requested changes Dec 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bedevere-bot added awaiting changes and removed awaiting review labels Dec 20, 2018

zhangyangyu requested a review from rhettinger December 21, 2018 03:37

rhettinger requested changes Dec 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts invalid identifiers

f47c3de

Windsooon force-pushed the bpo-35105 branch from a0e8550 to f47c3de Compare January 26, 2019 02:57

csabella requested changes May 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

csabella reviewed May 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

csabella reviewed May 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

csabella reviewed May 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

csabella reviewed May 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

Doc/library/functions.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JulienPalard added the skip news label Sep 11, 2019

fix docs format depend on review

7185897

JulienPalard requested changes Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

AlexWaygood closed this Apr 17, 2022

AlexWaygood reopened this Apr 21, 2022

ezio-melotti removed the CLA signed label Jul 13, 2022

slateny reviewed Oct 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

AlexWaygood closed this Oct 11, 2022

vstinner mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2022

Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #79286

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #11263

bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #11263

Windsooon commented Dec 20, 2018 •

edited by bedevere-bot

Loading

terryjreedy left a comment

bedevere-bot commented Dec 20, 2018

zhangyangyu commented Dec 21, 2018

terryjreedy commented Dec 21, 2018

rhettinger left a comment

terryjreedy commented Dec 24, 2018

csabella left a comment

JulienPalard commented Sep 11, 2019

Windsooon commented Sep 11, 2019

JulienPalard left a comment

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019

csabella commented Jan 12, 2020

AlexWaygood commented Apr 17, 2022

Windsooon commented Apr 21, 2022

AlexWaygood commented Apr 21, 2022

slateny Oct 10, 2022

slateny Oct 10, 2022

slateny Oct 11, 2022

slateny Oct 11, 2022

slateny Oct 11, 2022

AlexWaygood commented Oct 11, 2022

	setattr() attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.
	``setattr()`` attempts to update the object with the given attr/value pair.

	If an object's class defines `__slots__`, the attribute may not be writeable.
	If an object's class defines ``__slots__``, the attribute may not be writeable.

	will be the equivalent of ``vars()['1'] ='one'``.
	will be the equivalent of ``vars()['1'] = 'one'``.

	Whether this succeeds and the effect it has determined by the target object.
	Whether this succeeds and the effect it has is determined by the target object.

	setattr() call can make any string keyed update allowed by the dictionary
	setattr() call can make any string-keyed update allowed by the dictionary

bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #11263

bpo-35105: Document that CPython accepts "invalid" identifiers #11263

Conversation

Windsooon commented Dec 20, 2018 • edited by bedevere-bot Loading

terryjreedy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bedevere-bot commented Dec 20, 2018

zhangyangyu commented Dec 21, 2018

terryjreedy commented Dec 21, 2018

rhettinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

terryjreedy commented Dec 24, 2018

csabella left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JulienPalard commented Sep 11, 2019

Windsooon commented Sep 11, 2019

JulienPalard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

csabella commented Jan 12, 2020

AlexWaygood commented Apr 17, 2022

Windsooon commented Apr 21, 2022

AlexWaygood commented Apr 21, 2022

slateny Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slateny Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slateny Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slateny Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slateny Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexWaygood commented Oct 11, 2022

Windsooon commented Dec 20, 2018 •

edited by bedevere-bot

Loading

JulienPalard Sep 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading