GeezerVison

Existing logic to format a type name as type.__fullyqualname__ does.

I found a lot of code like:

• name = "%s.%s" % (obj.__module__, obj.__qualname__)
• __repr__() method: cls = self.__class__; return f"<{cls.__module__}.{cls.__qualname__} at ...}"

traceback: only code that I found which treats the __main__ module differently:

        stype = self.exc_type.__qualname__
        smod = self.exc_type.__module__
        if smod not in ("__main__", "builtins"):
            if not isinstance(smod, str):
                smod = "<unknown>"
            stype = smod + '.' + stype

_collections_abc: _type_repr() function

def _type_repr(obj):
    ...
    if isinstance(obj, type):
        if obj.__module__ == 'builtins':
            return obj.__qualname__
        return f'{obj.__module__}.{obj.__qualname__}'
    ...

inspect: omit base_module if specified

def formatannotation(annotation, base_module=None):
    ...
    if isinstance(annotation, type):
        if annotation.__module__ in ('builtins', base_module):
            return annotation.__qualname__
        return annotation.__module__+'.'+annotation.__qualname__
    ...

unittest:

def strclass(cls):
    return "%s.%s" % (cls.__module__, cls.__qualname__)

I added a second commit using the new type.__fullyqualname__ attribute in the stdlib to show how it can be used. Even if the attribute is not used to add new "%T" and "%#T" formats to PyUnicode_FromFormat(), this change is useful.

Naming is hard. Taking care of myself is harder. I have a lot going on at the moment and I really would prefer not to be responsible for this particular naming decision. Hopefully one or more of the other reviewers can help instead.

IMO, this should use something more customizable than an attribute. A format() directive for example.

@gvanrossum:

Naming is hard. Taking care of myself is harder.

He he, I totally get it and it's perfectly fine. Take care.

@encukou:

IMO, this should use something more customizable than an attribute. A format() directive for example.

This change is not exclusive with extending type.__format__() to get new formats. Moreover, if we add a format to get the fully qualified name of a type, I would prefer to have a more "regular" way to get it instead of having to go through formatting.

unittest example from this PR:

def strclass(cls): return "%s.%s" % (cls.__module__, cls.__qualname__)

is replaced with:

def strclass(cls): return cls.__fully_qualified_name__

I like the ability to get an attribute rather than having to build a f-string for that.

Adding new formats to format a type name in Python has been discussed in length. Most recent to oldest discussions:

• https://discuss.python.org/t/enhance-type-name-formatting-when-raising-an-exception-add-t-format-in-c-and-add-type-fullyqualname/38129
• PEP 737: PyUnicode_FromFormat(): Add %T format to format the type name of an object #111696
• https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/HKYUMTVHNBVB5LJNRMZ7TPUQKGKAERCJ/#3UAMHYG6UF4MPLXBZORHO4JVKUBRUZ53
• PyUnicode_FromFormat(): add %T format for an object type name #78776

Problems:

• I'm not convinced that there is a strong need for formats other than type.__name__ and type.__fully_qualified_name__. I prefer to get an attribute easy to read and understand without having to check the documentation, rather than using a single letter format such as {type|T}
• So far, I didn't see a clear consensus on an API for such formatting.

So my plan is now to add type.__fully_qualified_name__ attribute, add %T (type.__name__) and %#T (type.__fully_qualified_name__) to PyUnicode_FromFormat() in C, use these new APIs, and then see if more APIs should be added.

Adding new formats to format a type name in Python has been discussed in length.

Yes. Did any of those discussions reach consensus on adding __fully_qualified_name__ with this implementation?

@JelleZijlstra: Please review the updated PR. I tried to address all comments of your latest review.

I wrote PEP 737 – Unify type name formatting for these changes: see the PEP discussion.

I wrote PEP 737 – Unify type name formatting for these changes: see the PEP discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to write a PEP. I think it's important that changes to builtin classes like this go through the PEP process :-)

PEP 737 changed the API since this PR was created. I close this PR for now and will create a new one (or maybe reopen this PR) since PEP 737 will be approved.

The Steering Council rejected the type.__fully_qualified_name__ attribute: see https://peps.python.org/pep-0737/#id1 for details. Thomas wrote: "I think the SC could be persuaded given some concrete use-cases."