Hacker News Reader

Comment by macbony | Hacker News Reader

If instead of x being an integer, it were a function x(), then it makes more sense. Really, for Python, there is no difference between the two in this example. When you assign a new value to B.x, you're overriding the value that B inherited from A. When you override the value in A, any subclass that doesn't have it's own overridden value will use the new A.x, but any subclass that is overridden will be unchanged.

View on HN

I agree the behaviour makes sense for functions.

I suppose I just prefer the idea that the meaning of assigning a value to a variable should be "assign this value to the variable", rather than "alter the inheritance behaviour of my class such that mutable state is stored in it where it wasn't stored before, and then assign this value to the variable."

x isn't a variable, it's a tag. Because Python is dynamically typed, x can be an int one minute and a function the next, so every attribute on a class is stored as a pointer to an object, including attributes that are integers (which is an object) and functions (which are also objects). Because you aren't declaring the type of x (Python doesn't allow that), Python has to treat x = 1 the same way it'd treat def x(self).

Where x is an identifier (presumably aka tag?) that refers to a variable, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for "x = 1" to be interpreted as "store the value of 1 into the variable that is referred to by identifier x". Plenty of languages, including dynamically typed ones, manage to do this, as indeed Python does in many cases.

Not knowing the type of x is unrelated to question of where x's value is stored, or whether x's value will be stored somewhere else after we've assigned a new value to it.

I'm not really sure I understand your point. The value of x is still going to be in memory, but you may not have any references to it and it will be garbage collected. The disconnect is in thinking x is a variable and not an identifier. x points to the object in the parent until it is overridden. This allows me to dynamically alter the functionality of a class and all it's subclasses that don't override that functionality during runtime.

I'm not disputing how or why it works, just saying that I think it is poor design, as it causes a statement that looks like variable assignment to actually produce overriding. I think this violates the principle of least astonishment, and I suspect there is no good reason (beyond implementation simplicity) why Python class variables do behave this way.

(edit: replaced "an expression" with "a statement")

No, the reason it exists is so you can override functionality of subclasses at run time, otherwise things like monkey patching would be impossible. I guess it COULD do a pass to see if the attr is an immutable or some form of primative type when __new__ is called and force those to be instantiated as instance attributes at the cost of internal consistency, but it seems pretty straight forward to me the way it works now. You don't need to be an expert, you just need a basic understand of how Python evaluates code and the difference between tags and variables.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com