fish2000 / clu Goto Github PK

I don’t use Windows, I don’t currently have Windows, I don’t know Windows – I don’t know Python on Windows, I don’t know how anything POSIX-y works on Windows, I kind of detest how file paths work on Windows.

That said, I don’t dislike Windows, and I’d love to support Windows. This’d be, I am assuming, a big deal. Any assistance’d be welcome.

Right now, if you set up your own ProxyModule, the initialization code makes use of three different types of fallback callables – functions that get called with an attribute name that can’t be normally found in any of the ProxyModule target modules or mappings:

1. Module-level __getattr__(…) functions – like e.g. this one – which these are a relatively new sort of thing. They take the name of a key or attribute or whatever, and either return something (literally anything, I believe) or raise an AttributeError about it.

2. Dictionary-subtype __missing__(…) methods – as you can see from the link above to the ChainModuleMap.__missing__(…) source, this method gets called when __getitem__(…) can’t cut the mustard. It’s a method, so there’s a self in there – otherwise it’s like the module __getattr__(…) function: take a key, return a thing, or raise. The exception to be raised in this case is a KeyError, but as long as that’s been considered, one can pull the bound method off a dictionary instance and treat it more or less like the module function.

3. Arbitrary, user-furnished callables – my point of concern in this issue. Consider the callable I threw together for the inline test that covers this feature:

   def fallback_function(key):
       if key.isupper():
           return f"NO DOGG: {key}"
       raise KeyError(key)

   … There’s a criterion the function uses to decide if it should return or raise, and what it raises is a specific exception type. This type of thing is fine if you’re actually implementing one of the special function hooks from 1) or 2). But for these one-off callable fallback things, should we be aiming for something more, I dunno, casual?

Like in the clu.dispatch module, most functions are wrapped and re-wrapped to ensure that safe, sane, and non-idiotic return values happen. Granted, all that stuff concerns itself with orderly-shutdown semantics and POSIX signals and other nuances necessitated by the meshing of several real-world boundary APIs. Whatever, we can do the same thing here, doggie.

The question before you is: should we wrap the non-dunder, non-special-to-Python fallback callables, like to eschew exception mechanics in favor of (say) some sort of sentinel? Or some sleight-of-yield abstractions that allow for statefulness, maybe? Do people want that?

q.v. this SO question sub.:

• https://stackoverflow.com/q/60864784/298171

… I am not at all well-versed in coverage.py or any of the constellation of tools with which it interoperates. Suggestions welcome, indeed.