Allow #[name] with #[getter] and #[setter]

[scalexm]

A custom name can now be specified either via #[getter(custom_name)] or #[name = "custom_name"] like normal methods.

It's easier to have this kind of uniformity when dealing with code generation.

[davidhewitt]

Thanks, this seems reasonable to me. I would actually like to ask your opinion on a further change relating to this.

I was thinking of moving the #[name] attribute under the pyo3 namespace, e.g. #[pyo3(name = "foo")]. I wanted to make this change everywhere that the #[name] attribute can currently be used (keeping the old form for compatibility for a little while).

This could compose with #[getter] in a slightly different form: #[pyo3(getter, name = "foo")]. See other examples where this is relevant e.g. #1504 (comment)

So the options would be

#[pymethods]
impl Foo {
    #[getter(custom_name)]
    fn get_foo(&self) { }

    // or

    #[pyo3(getter, name = "custom_name")]
    fn get_bar(&self) { }
}

The later one is longer, but I think much clearer what is going on.

[scalexm]

Would you want to also allow multiple #[pyo3(...)] attributes like the following:

#[pyo3(getter)]
#[pyo3(name="custom_name")]
fn foo(&self) -> i32 { ... {

If yes, then that’s definitely a change I would support. This avoids clashing with other proc macros and adds uniformity with the existing #[pyo3(get, set)] on struct fields.

The ability to have the two attributes separately makes my life easier when generating code: in my case, adding a #[name] on every item through a macro.

[davidhewitt]

Would you want to also allow multiple #[pyo3(...)] attributes like the following:

Yes; we allow that for #[derive(FromPyObject)] which uses the #[pyo3(...)] attributes already. (And I'm pretty sure serde allows this too, which we borrowed the idea from.)

[davidhewitt]

If yes, then that’s definitely a change I would support.

Awesome! Are you willing to support the new syntax now in this PR, or you want to leave this PR as-is and I'll make a change to use the new syntax soon?

[scalexm]

Well, to be honest I’m in lack of a personal computer right now so my ability to write code in my free time is severely decreased :)

[davidhewitt]

👍 let's merge this PR and I'll write the follow-up!

[kngwyu]

Thanks!

[kngwyu]

I was thinking of moving the #[name] attribute under the pyo3 namespace, e.g. #[pyo3(name = "foo")].

I think it can be better, but first, shouldn't we summarize what is under the #[pyo3(...)] and what is not in an issue?