Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-39481: Make functools.cached_property, partial, ... #19427

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Apr 14, 2020

Conversation

ethanhs
Copy link
Contributor

@ethanhs ethanhs commented Apr 8, 2020

... partialmethod, _lru_cache_wrapper generic.

I noticed that _lru_cache_wrapper's Python implementation is a function, what should be done about that? I feel like it would be weird to have code that runs without the compiled functools to break on a subscripted lru_cache. Perhaps it should be a class instead?

https://bugs.python.org/issue39481

... partialmethod, _lru_cache_wrapper generic
@ethanhs ethanhs requested a review from rhettinger as a code owner April 8, 2020 00:00
@ethanhs ethanhs changed the title Make functools.cached_property, partial, ... bpo-39481: Make functools.cached_property, partial, ... Apr 8, 2020
@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

The conflicts are really annoying. I think we should merge these one at a time and then resolve conflicts in one following PR and land that before merging the next one. That will take a lot of time, because each time we must wait for the tests... :-(

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

I noticed that _lru_cache_wrapper's Python implementation is a function, what should be done about that? I feel like it would be weird to have code that runs without the compiled functools to break on a subscripted lru_cache. Perhaps it should be a class instead?

Based on this I withdraw my approval. @rhettinger what do you think?

@ethanhs If you want to make progress, remove _lru_cache_wrapper from this PR?

Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

_lru_cache_wrapper issue.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

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.

@rhettinger
Copy link
Contributor

I suggest omitting the lru_cache() for now.

Also, it would be nice to have a few tests.

@ethanhs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ethanhs commented Apr 12, 2020

@rhettinger Okay, sounds good, I will remove the lru_cache change, that can be done in a follow up. As for tests, I added the modified types to the GenericAlias tests that check they are subscriptable here: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/19427/files#diff-f3accc4cfc3724113e786a2ba3548f35R27

Edit: that link seems broken, but in test_genericalias.py, there are tests for all the relevant types.

Did you have other tests in mind?

@ethanhs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ethanhs commented Apr 13, 2020

I have made the requested changes; please review again

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@gvanrossum: please review the changes made to this pull request.

Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think Raymond should be happy, so I'll merge now.

@gvanrossum gvanrossum merged commit cecf049 into python:master Apr 14, 2020
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

@gvanrossum: Please replace # with GH- in the commit message next time. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants