bpo-46076: Improve documentation for per-attribute docstrings with __slots__

[AlexWaygood]

https://bugs.python.org/issue46076

[TeamSpen210]

The pydoc code currently checks specifically for dicts, so perhaps the docs should specify only those are expected (or that code changed)?

[AlexWaygood]

The pydoc code currently checks specifically for dicts

Good catch! Whether the pydoc implementation should be changed is arguable, but I think that discussion should happen in another issue — for now, I'll just update this patch to note that only dict is supported.

[AlexWaygood]

@stevendaprano, you've been heavily involved in the recent python-ideas thread on this topic — any thoughts on this PR? 🙂

[AlexWaygood]

One thing I'm unsure of: is there anywhere else that this feature should be noted? I couldn't find a "docstring tutorial" where a mention of this feature would easily fit in.

(If there are any other places where a mention would be good, I think a link to the data model would suffice — I'm not suggesting duplicating documentation of this feature in multiple places.)

[sobolevn]

Thanks! This was always a very useful little feature not so many people know about. 👍

[rhettinger]

The style of the reference manual is terse. Please just make a compact one-line entry noting that _slots_ can accept a dictionary and that the inspect module treats the values of that dictionary as docstrings for the slots.

[auvipy]

really great improvement!

[AlexWaygood]

The style of the reference manual is terse. Please just make a compact one-line entry noting that slots can accept a dictionary and that the inspect module treats the values of that dictionary as docstrings for the slots.

@rhettinger, I absolutely take your point that this PR, as currently written, is out of keeping with the style of the rest of the data model documentation. However, I do think the example is helpful, and this feature is not currently documented anywhere else.

If I pare this PR down to a single sentence, as you suggest, would you be open to a proposal (in a separate PR) to add a mention of this feature in the Descriptor HowTo? I can't think of anywhere else where an example of this sort would fit well; __slots__ are only described in detail in the data model and the Descriptor HowTo.

[stevendaprano]

Thanks Alex, this looks good to me. And thanks Raymond for doing the work in the first place all those releases back.

[bedevere-bot]

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]

Several thoughts:

• The descriptor how-to is primarily about descriptors. This is unrelated.
• This large example doesn't belong anywhere in the docs.
• This is a really minor feature.
• We use it only once in the standard library and it isn't visible because the attributes are private.
• IMO it doesn't even warrant a tutorial section – we only give a couple lines to enumerate() or zip().
• The feature isn't universal. For example there isn't a way to use it with dataclasses.
• The use of _slots_ isn't universally considered a best practice. A number of core devs frown upon their use and think of them only an optimization used when there are expected to be a lot of instances. _slots_ gets in the way of inspecting instances with vars() and conflicts with @cached_property.
• The docstring feature for named tuples only warranted a couple of lines.
• This really isn't even a feature of _slots_. Rather it is a capability that was added to inspect.
• The docs not there for "promoting" features. A blog post is better medium for that.
• Please just make the requested changes and make a small note in the reference manual.

[AlexWaygood]

Thanks for the feedback, Raymond -- I appreciate you taking the time! I have made the requested changes; please review again.

[bedevere-bot]

Thanks for making the requested changes!

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

[miss-islington]

Thanks @AlexWaygood for the PR, and @rhettinger for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9, 3.10.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[bedevere-bot]

GH-30206 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

[rhettinger]

Thanks for the PR.

[bedevere-bot]

GH-30207 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.