GeezerVison

This can return a subclass, e.g.

class my(str):
    def __format__(self, spec):
        return self
m=my('aap')
type(f'{m}')

Does the sym_new_type(ctx, &PyUnicode_Type); not guarantee we have an exact type?

Good catch! I oversimplified this. Narrowing type for format isn't as straightforward as I thought.

That said, I'm curious why FORMAT_SIMPLE needs to preserve str subclasses. Had a look through the git history it's been this way since 2015, and seems not a deliberate type-preservation contract.

Current behaviour is already inconsistent:

class my(str):
    def __format__(self, spec):
        return self

m = my('aap')
type('{}'.format(m))   # <class 'my'>
type('x{}'.format(m))  # <class 'str'>
type(f'{m}')           # <class 'my'>
type(f'x{m}')          # <class 'str'>

Multi-piece concatenation already strips it (both _PyUnicodeWriter in str.format and BUILD_STRING in f-strings create exact str).

If FORMAT_SIMPLE normalised to exact str, this inconsistency goes away and type narrowing becomes unconditionally correct. Would that be a reasonable change, or is there a reason to preserve str subclass identity through formatting that I'm missing?

Huh that's kinda scary. The semantics look a little strange, so maybe we should leave this alone for now?

Fair enough. I just noticed the inconsistency and thought it was worth raising.

For the narrowing itself: we could do conditional narrowing for input types where we can prove __format__ returns exact str (e.g. int, float). But honestly it feels not pythonic to hardcode a list of "safe" types for a uop that's less then 0.1%. I'd prefer just closing this PR unless you think it's worth keeping with that approach?

Actually we already have something like that called sym_is_safe_type, you can use that

I couldn't find sym_is_safe_type anywhere. The closest thing I can see is sym_is_safe_const, but that checks for known constant values rather than types. Have I overlooked something?

Oh yeah sorry that's the one! Just factor out the type checks in _Py_uop_sym_is_safe_const into another function and use that in this case, I think that's fine!

Done. How does it look now?

Oops, I meant to factor this out into a common function, sorry!

You mean factoring safe types into a static helper? No problem.

I don't like this name. "is safe" for what?

For how we are using this, I don't think frozendict and frozenset should be included as they can contain "unsafe" objects. You should be able to add bytes to the list.

Maybe is_atomic_builtin_type?

Also add a comment explaining that "atomic" means that its values can be evaluated without side effects as they aren't containers. Also that common functions on them are pure and return the expected type, like str(ob) returns a str, int(ob) returns an obj, etc.

Looks like frozendict and frozenset aren't safe for const folding either. I've pushed a test that captures the behaviour. I am not sure if there is a better fix than just dropping them. Do you want that addressed here, or track in a separate issue?