PEP 520 – Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order
- Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com>
- Standards Track
- 07-Jun-2016, 11-Jun-2016, 20-Jun-2016, 24-Jun-2016
- Python-Dev message
Table of Contents
- Why a tuple?
- Why not a read-only attribute?
- Why not “__attribute_order__”?
- Why not ignore “dunder” names?
- Why None instead of an empty tuple?
- Why None instead of not setting the attribute?
- Why constrain manually set values?
- Why not hide __definition_order__ on non-type objects?
- What about __slots__?
- Why is __definition_order__ even necessary?
- Support for C-API Types
- Other Python Implementations
Since compact dict has landed in 3.6, __definition_order__
has been removed.
cls.__dict__ now mostly accomplishes the same
The class definition syntax is ordered by its very nature. Class attributes defined there are thus ordered. Aside from helping with readability, that ordering is sometimes significant. If it were automatically available outside the class definition then the attribute order could be used without the need for extra boilerplate (such as metaclasses or manually enumerating the attribute order). Given that this information already exists, access to the definition order of attributes is a reasonable expectation. However, currently Python does not preserve the attribute order from the class definition.
This PEP changes that by preserving the order in which attributes
are introduced in the class definition body. That order will now be
preserved in the
__definition_order__ attribute of the class.
This allows introspection of the original definition order, e.g. by
Additionally, this PEP requires that the default class definition
namespace be ordered (e.g.
OrderedDict) by default. The long-
lived class namespace (
__dict__) will remain a
The attribute order from a class definition may be useful to tools that rely on name order. However, without the automatic availability of the definition order, those tools must impose extra requirements on users. For example, use of such a tool may require that your class use a particular metaclass. Such requirements are often enough to discourage use of the tool.
Some tools that could make use of this PEP include:
- documentation generators
- testing frameworks
- CLI frameworks
- web frameworks
- config generators
- data serializers
- enum factories (my original motivation)
When a class is defined using a
class statement, the class body
is executed within a namespace. Currently that namespace defaults to
dict. If the metaclass defines
__prepare__() then the result
of calling it is used for the class definition namespace.
After the execution completes, the definition namespace is
copied into a new
dict. Then the original definition namespace is
discarded. The new copy is stored away as the class’s namespace and
is exposed as
__dict__ through a read-only proxy.
The class attribute definition order is represented by the insertion
order of names in the definition namespace. Thus, we can have
access to the definition order by switching the definition namespace
to an ordered mapping, such as
collections.OrderedDict. This is
feasible using a metaclass and
__prepare__, as described above.
In fact, exactly this is by far the most common use case for using
At that point, the only missing thing for later access to the definition order is storing it on the class before the definition namespace is thrown away. Again, this may be done using a metaclass. However, this means that the definition order is preserved only for classes that use such a metaclass. There are two practical problems with that:
First, it requires the use of a metaclass. Metaclasses introduce an
extra level of complexity to code and in some cases (e.g. conflicts)
are a problem. So reducing the need for them is worth doing when the
opportunity presents itself. PEP 422 and PEP 487 discuss this at
length. We have such an opportunity by using an ordered mapping (e.g.
OrderedDict for CPython at least) for the default class definition
namespace, virtually eliminating the need for
Second, only classes that opt in to using the
metaclass will have access to the definition order. This is problematic
for cases where universal access to the definition order is important.
- all classes have a
tupleof identifiers (or
__definition_order__is always set:
- during execution of the class body, the insertion order of names into the class definition namespace is stored in a tuple
__definition_order__is defined in the class body then it must be a
tupleof identifiers or
None; any other value will result in
- classes that do not have a class definition (e.g. builtins) have
- classes for which
__prepare__()returned something other than
OrderedDict(or a subclass) have their
None(except where #2 applies)
dir()will not depend on
- descriptors and custom
__getattribute__methods are unconstrained regarding
- the default class definition namespace is now an ordered mapping
cls.__dict__does not change, remaining a read-only proxy around
Note that Python implementations which have an ordered
need to change anything.
The following code demonstrates roughly equivalent semantics for both parts 1 and 2:
class Meta(type): @classmethod def __prepare__(cls, *args, **kwargs): return OrderedDict() class Spam(metaclass=Meta): ham = None eggs = 5 __definition_order__ = tuple(locals())
Why a tuple?
Use of a tuple reflects the fact that we are exposing the order in
which attributes on the class were defined. Since the definition
is already complete by the time
__definition_order__ is set, the
content and order of the value won’t be changing. Thus we use a type
that communicates that state of immutability.
Why not a read-only attribute?
There are some valid arguments for making
a read-only attribute (like
cls.__dict__ is). Most notably, a
read-only attribute conveys the nature of the attribute as “complete”,
which is exactly correct for
__definition_order__. Since it
represents the state of a particular one-time event (execution of
the class definition body), allowing the value to be replaced would
reduce confidence that the attribute corresponds to the original class
body. Furthermore, often an immutable-by-default approach helps to
make data easier to reason about.
However, in this case there still isn’t a strong reason to counter the well-worn precedent found in Python. Per Guido:
I don't see why it needs to be a read-only attribute. There are very few of those -- in general we let users play around with things unless we have a hard reason to restrict assignment (e.g. the interpreter's internal state could be compromised). I don't see such a hard reason here.
Also, note that a writeable
__definition_order__ allows dynamically
created classes (e.g. by Cython) to still have
properly set. That could certainly be handled through specific class-
creation tools, such as
type() or the C-API, without the need to
lose the semantics of a read-only attribute. However, with a writeable
attribute it’s a moot point.
Why not “__attribute_order__”?
__definition_order__ is centered on the class definition
body. The use cases for dealing with the class namespace (
post-definition are a separate matter.
be a significantly misleading name for a feature focused on more than
Why not ignore “dunder” names?
Names starting and ending with “__” are reserved for use by the
interpreter. In practice they should not be relevant to the users of
__definition_order__. Instead, for nearly everyone they would only
be clutter, causing the same extra work (filtering out the dunder
names) for the majority. In cases where a dunder name is significant,
the class definition could manually set
making the common case simpler.
However, leaving dunder names out of
that their place in the definition order would be unrecoverably lost.
Dropping dunder names by default may inadvertently cause problems for
classes that use dunder names unconventionally. In this case it’s
better to play it safe and preserve all the names from the class
definition. This isn’t a big problem since it is easy to filter out
(name for name in cls.__definition_order__ if not (name.startswith('__') and name.endswith('__')))
In fact, in some application contexts there may be other criteria on which similar filtering would be applied, such as ignoring any name starting with “_”, leaving out all methods, or including only descriptors. Ultimately dunder names aren’t a special enough case to be treated exceptionally.
Note that a couple of dunder names (
are injected by default by the compiler. So they will be included even
though they are not strictly part of the class definition body.
Why None instead of an empty tuple?
A key objective of adding
__definition_order__ is to preserve
information in class definitions which was lost prior to this PEP.
One consequence is that
__definition_order__ implies an original
class definition. Using
None allows us to clearly distinguish
classes that do not have a definition order. An empty tuple clearly
indicates a class that came from a definition statement but did not
define any attributes there.
Why None instead of not setting the attribute?
The absence of an attribute requires more complex handling than
does for consumers of
Why constrain manually set values?
__definition_order__ is manually set in the class body then it
will be used. We require it to be a tuple of identifiers (or
so that consumers of
__definition_order__ may have a consistent
expectation for the value. That helps maximize the feature’s
We could also allow an arbitrary iterable for a manually set
__definition_order__ and convert it into a tuple. However, not
all iterables infer a definition order (e.g.
set). So we opt in
favor of requiring a tuple.
Why not hide __definition_order__ on non-type objects?
Python doesn’t make much effort to hide class-specific attributes
during lookup on instances of classes. While it may make sense
__definition_order__ a class-only attribute, hidden
during lookup on objects, setting precedent in that regard is
beyond the goals of this PEP.
What about __slots__?
__slots__ will be added to
__definition_order__ like any
other name in the class definition body. The actual slot names
will not be added to
__definition_order__ since they aren’t
set as names in the definition namespace.
Why is __definition_order__ even necessary?
Since the definition order is not preserved in
__dict__, it is
lost once class definition execution completes. Classes could
explicitly set the attribute as the last thing in the body. However,
then independent decorators could only make use of classes that had done
__definition_order__ preserves this one bit of info
from the class body so that it is universally available.
Support for C-API Types
Arguably, most C-defined Python types (e.g. built-in, extension modules)
have a roughly equivalent concept of a definition order. So conceivably
__definition_order__ could be set for such types automatically. This
PEP does not introduce any such support. However, it does not prohibit
it either. However, since
__definition_order__ can be set at any
time through normal attribute assignment, it does not need any special
treatment in the C-API.
The specific cases:
- builtin types
This PEP does not break backward compatibility, except in the case that
someone relies strictly on
dict as the class definition namespace.
This shouldn’t be a problem since
issubclass(OrderedDict, dict) is
In addition to the class syntax, the following expose the new behavior:
Also, the 3-argument form of
builtins.type() will allow inclusion
__definition_order__ in the namespace that gets passed in. It
will be subject to the same constraints as when
is explicitly defined in the class body.
Other Python Implementations
Pending feedback, the impact on Python implementations is expected to
be minimal. All conforming implementations are expected to set
__definition_order__ as described in this PEP.
The implementation is found in the tracker. [impl]
An Order-preserving cls.__dict__
Instead of storing the definition order in
the now-ordered definition namespace could be copied into a new
OrderedDict. This would then be used as the mapping proxied as
__dict__. Doing so would mostly provide the same semantics.
__dict__ would obscure the
relationship with the definition namespace, making it less useful.
Additionally, (in the case of
OrderedDict specifically) doing
this would require significant changes to the semantics of the
There has been some discussion about moving to a compact dict
implementation which would (mostly) preserve insertion order. However
the lack of an explicit
__definition_order__ would still remain
as a pain point.
A “namespace” Keyword Arg for Class Definition
introduced a new “namespace” keyword arg to class definitions
that effectively replaces the need to
However, the proposal was withdrawn in favor of the simpler PEP 487.
A stdlib Metaclass that Implements __prepare__() with OrderedDict
This has all the same problems as writing your own metaclass. The only advantage is that you don’t have to actually write this metaclass. So it doesn’t offer any benefit in the context of this PEP.
Set __definition_order__ at Compile-time
__qualname__ is determined at compile-time.
This same concept could be applied to
The result of composing
__definition_order__ at compile-time
would be nearly the same as doing so at run-time.
Comparative implementation difficulty aside, the key difference
would be that at compile-time it would not be practical to
preserve definition order for attributes that are set dynamically
in the class body (e.g.
locals()[name] = value). However,
they should still be reflected in the definition order. One
possible resolution would be to require class authors to manually
__definition_order__ if they define any class attributes
Ultimately, the use of
OrderedDict at run-time or compile-time
discovery is almost entirely an implementation detail.
- issue #24254 (https://bugs.python.org/issue24254)
- Nick’s concerns about mutability (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/144883.html)
- original discussion (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-February/019690.html)
- follow-up 1 (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-June/127103.html)
- follow-up 2 (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-May/140137.html)
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Last modified: 2022-03-09 16:04:44 GMT