Re: [Jython-dev] PyShadowString test, ideas, questions

[Jeff A. <ja...@fa...>]

The point of having a copy of the list would be to prevent this:

 >>> s = PyShadowString("hello", "bonjour")
 >>> s.addtarget(r"org\.python\.util\.InteractiveConsole")
 >>> t = s[:3]
 >>> t == "bon"
True
 >>> s. gettargets().pop()
('org\\.python\\.util\\.InteractiveConsole',)
 >>> t == "bon"
False

It is not a problem if the slice is only transient, as in if 
sys.platform[:4] == 'java' , which I agree is the only sort of slicing 
attested in the stdlib. If we imagine a slice getting a life of its own, 
the behaviour above would be very confusing, but I'm happy to risk that 
for now.

I think I have a decent implementation now of these several changes.

Jeff

Jeff Allen

On 27/11/2017 21:31, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
> > I wonder why we write if sys.platform[:4] == 'java' anyway. It's 
> more work than startswith and you have to count to 4 yourself.
> It's a matter of fact that external libraries sometimes use slicing 
> for platform check. So far the implementation served all use cases I 
> found.
> > suggest we expect PyShadowString(a, b)[m,n] to be 
> PyShadowString(a[m,n], b[m,n]), and I can see advantages to that.
> Good spot. Luckily this is mostly used for "win" which is shorter than 
> "java", but of course your version is safer and more correct.
> Please let's apply that.
> > Also, if the targets list is mutable, I think each slice must have 
> its own.
> I'm not sure if that is necessary. At least for all use cases I know 
> it is fine if the slice inherits or shares target list from/with the 
> original PyShadowString. Do I overlook something?
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 27. November 2017 um 21:33 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jeff Allen" <ja...@fa...>
> *An:* "Stefan Richthofer" <Ste...@gm...>
> *Cc:* "Jython Developers" <jyt...@li...>
> *Betreff:* Re: PyShadowString test, ideas, questions
>
> Thanks Stefan:
>
> I'm happy with your answers. I have tried isBaseType = true and can 
> run the str tests now (passes of course). I've added a *Derived.java file.
>
> 7. Slicing is interesting. Nice touch.
>
> >>> s = PyShadowString("hello", "bonjour")
> >>> s[:3]
> 'hel ( ==bon for targets )'
>
> I appreciate the main use case is sys.platform[:n] , but these were 
> surprising (because the slice is only interpreted relative to the main 
> string):
>
> >>> s[:7]
> 'hello ( ==bonjo for targets )'
>
> >>> s[-3:]
> 'llo ( ==njo for targets )'
>
> I suggest we expect PyShadowString(a, b)[m,n] to be 
> PyShadowString(a[m,n], b[m,n]), and I can see advantages to that. 
> Also, if the targets list is mutable, I think each slice must have its 
> own.
>
> I wonder why we write if sys.platform[:4] == 'java' anyway. It's more 
> work than startswith and you have to count to 4 yourself.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Allen
> On 26/11/2017 10:16, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
>
>     Trying to give answers as far as I have them...
>
>     1. Should I be able to do this?
>
>     >>> s.gettargets().pop()
>     ('org\\.python\\.util\\.InteractiveConsole',)
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     False
>
>     I think that's okay. target list is not private to alow
>     monkeypatching etc in usual Python fashion.
>
>     2. This seems like a useful "unconditional", but I wonder if it is
>     harmful:
>
>     >>> s.addtarget(None)
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     True
>
>     No opinion. This behavior looks okay to me. Whoever uses
>     PyShadowString must be aware of entering evil zone anyway.
>
>     3. Confusing subject, but I'm not sure the exposure of __eq__ is
>     "canonical". I think the convention is __eq__ just wraps
>     shadowstr___eq__, as done for startswith and __repr__, but here
>     there is "added value" in __eq__ (also in PyString.__eq__).
>     shadowstr___eq__ will be exposed as __eq__, and shouldn't
>     PyShadowString.__eq__ do the same thing? What we need is
>     complicated by the wrapper PyObject._eq.
>
>     I think you're right. The check for isTarget should be moved to
>     shadowstr___eq__ I suppose. Sorry I overlooked this when I wrote it.
>
>     4. Single-stepping through __eq__ I notice that a call like s ==
>     'bonjour' (i.e. a call to __eq__) is quite costly, even when there
>     are no targets that match. The problem is in isTarget() and so I
>     think I will try changing the logic to:
>
>     return other==string || (other==shadow && isTarget())
>
>     but also, we can make isTarget() cheaper.
>
>     Thats' s a good improvement. Also, isTarget should fail-fast if
>     target list is empty (I thought I had done it that way).On the
>     other hand, performance is hardly a priority here, because
>     platform checks are usually rather seldom, mostly on startup only.
>
>     5. I tried the tests of str on PyShadowString, to prove it is also
>     a str, but they fail because it cannot be sub-classed. Is there a
>     reason to prevent sub-classing?
>
>     This is because of isBaseType = false? We can remove that. I just
>     felt that shadow string contains enough magic and should not be
>     further extended, but there is no concrete reason. We can allow
>     subclassing.
>
>     6. And relatedly, when I was working on PyType I noticed that it
>     is possible to expose a Java sub-class as the same Python type as
>     its parent. This would mean that type(PyShadowString("a", "b"))
>     would be str even though the behaviour is different. This sounds
>     worth trying.
>
>     Hmm, I don't like that. ShadowString is not a string and its type
>     should be labled accordingly.
>
>     *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 26. November 2017 um 09:06 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Jeff Allen" <ja...@fa...>
>     *An:* "Jython Developers" <jyt...@li...>,
>     "Stefan Richthofer" <Ste...@gm...>
>     *Betreff:* PyShadowString test, ideas, questions
>
>     I've added a test for PyShadowString, our string that can have two
>     values at once. Trying to design a test raises some questions.
>
>     >>> s = PyShadowString("hello", "bonjour")
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     False
>     >>> s.addtarget(r"org\.python\.util\.InteractiveConsole")
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     True
>
>     So far so good.
>
>     1. Should I be able to do this?
>
>     >>> s.gettargets().pop()
>     ('org\\.python\\.util\\.InteractiveConsole',)
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     False
>
>     2. This seems like a useful "unconditional", but I wonder if it is
>     harmful:
>
>     >>> s.addtarget(None)
>     >>> s == 'bonjour'
>     True
>
>     3. Confusing subject, but I'm not sure the exposure of __eq__ is
>     "canonical". I think the convention is __eq__ just wraps
>     shadowstr___eq__, as done for startswith and __repr__, but here
>     there is "added value" in __eq__ (also in PyString.__eq__).
>     shadowstr___eq__ will be exposed as __eq__, and shouldn't
>     PyShadowString.__eq__ do the same thing? What we need is
>     complicated by the wrapper PyObject._eq.
>
>     4. Single-stepping through __eq__ I notice that a call like s ==
>     'bonjour' (i.e. a call to __eq__) is quite costly, even when there
>     are no targets that match. The problem is in isTarget() and so I
>     think I will try changing the logic to:
>
>     return other==string || (other==shadow && isTarget())
>
>     but also, we can make isTarget() cheaper.
>
>     5. I tried the tests of str on PyShadowString, to prove it is also
>     a str, but they fail because it cannot be sub-classed. Is there a
>     reason to prevent sub-classing?
>
>     6. And relatedly, when I was working on PyType I noticed that it
>     is possible to expose a Java sub-class as the same Python type as
>     its parent. This would mean that type(PyShadowString("a", "b"))
>     would be str even though the behaviour is different. This sounds
>     worth trying.
>
>     Jeff
>
>     -- 
>     Jeff Allen
>