Skip to content

gh-103373: Improve documentation for __mro_entries__ #103374

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 8, 2023
Merged

gh-103373: Improve documentation for __mro_entries__ #103374

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
27f1b3d
gh-103373: Improve documentation for `__mro_entries__`
AlexWaygood Apr 8, 2023
86b6989
fiddle
AlexWaygood Apr 8, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 9 additions & 5 deletions Doc/reference/datamodel.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2086,11 +2086,15 @@ When a class definition is executed, the following steps occur:
Resolving MRO entries
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If a base that appears in class definition is not an instance of :class:`type`,
then an ``__mro_entries__`` method is searched on it. If found, it is called
with the original bases tuple. This method must return a tuple of classes that
will be used instead of this base. The tuple may be empty, in such case
the original base is ignored.
.. method:: object.__mro_entries__(self, bases)

If a base that appears in a class definition is not an instance of
:class:`type`, then an ``__mro_entries__`` method is searched on the base.
If an ``__mro_entries__`` method is found, the base is substituted with the
result of a call to ``__mro_entries__`` when creating the class.
The method is called with the original bases tuple, and must return a tuple
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was merged before I had a chance to review, but just to note for the future, the standard Python docs convention is to always italicize parameter names (*bases*), especially on first use.

Copy link
Member Author

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood Apr 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the review! "The original bases tuple" here refers to the object that is passed to the parameter named bases rather than the word "bases" referring to the parameter named bases itself — so I don't think that convention applies here. But if this is confusing then maybe the sentence needs to be reworded — so this is useful feedback, thanks :)

I was planning on doing a followup PR anyway, adding links from other parts of the docs to this section in the data model. I'll see if I can address this as part of the followup PR.

Copy link
Member

@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach Apr 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, thanks—I wasn't totally sure about that. In that case, then, it might be helpful, then, to explicitly mention the bases parameter somewhere relevant, particularly for readers scanning the docs looking for its description.

of classes that will be used instead of the base. The returned tuple may be
empty: in these cases, the original base is ignored.

.. seealso::

Expand Down