Make builtins.callable "generic"

[hauntsaninja]

BPO	42102
Nosy	@gvanrossum, @serhiy-storchaka, @ilevkivskyi, @isidentical, @hauntsaninja, @Fidget-Spinner
PRs	python/cpython#22848

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields: ```python assignee = None closed_at = None created_at = labels = ['type-feature', '3.10'] title = 'Make builtins.callable "generic"' updated_at = user = 'https://github.com/hauntsaninja' ``` bugs.python.org fields: ```python activity = actor = 'gvanrossum' assignee = 'none' closed = False closed_date = None closer = None components = [] creation = creator = 'hauntsaninja' dependencies = [] files = [] hgrepos = [] issue_num = 42102 keywords = ['patch'] message_count = 15.0 messages = ['379169', '379179', '379182', '379196', '379197', '381072', '381080', '381081', '381141', '381151', '381155', '381158', '381641', '381657', '381671'] nosy_count = 6.0 nosy_names = ['gvanrossum', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'levkivskyi', 'BTaskaya', 'hauntsaninja', 'kj'] pr_nums = ['22848'] priority = 'normal' resolution = None stage = 'patch review' status = 'open' superseder = None type = 'enhancement' url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue42102' versions = ['Python 3.10'] ```

[hauntsaninja]

In the post PEP-585 world, it seems like a bit of a stumbling block for builtins.callable to not able to be parametrised (in a runtime context). Post PEP-604, I'd expect typing.Callable to be the most used typing import after typing.Any, so much of PEP-585's rationale should apply to this case too.

Concretely, one way to implement this would be to turn callable into a type whose new returns a bool and which implements __class_getitem. We could throw in an instancecheck__ so that isinstance(x, callable) == callable(x).

PS: Despite being code that crashes instantly, I was still able to find some instances of isinstance(x, callable) on popular Github projects: https://grep.app/search?q=isinstance%5C%28.%2A%2C%20callable%5C%29&regexp=true&case=true

[Fidget-Spinner]

+1 to this. I'm more surprised that callable wasn't already able to do that (also surprised at the isinstance(x, callable) code crashing).

I think the implementation would be slightly different than what you proposed. I'd like to give it a shot if you aren't already doing this, and if there's more support for this too.

[gvanrossum]

I'm not against this, though I'm not sure it really buys us much (Any still has to be imported from typing). Maybe you can submit a PR? Running the tests might be informative.

[serhiy-storchaka]

Callable is very special generic. It differs in many ways from List or Awaitable. You cannot just use GenericAlias.

Also, in contrary to list() or dict(), callable() is not a constructor, it is a predicate. callable[[int], str]() does not make sense.

[hauntsaninja]

Sure, I put together a draft PR here: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/22848 Tests pass cleanly, though timeit indicates callable is slower.

I haven't added instancecheck, which we should consider doing, since isinstance(x, callable) would now return False, instead of raising TypeError.

@serhiy I hack around that using callable.__new__, so callable[[int], str]() raises a TypeError in my draft PR. Note that callable[[int], str](f) would work the same as callable(f) does today (which from a typechecking perspective is similar to the fact that list[int](("a", "b", "c")) works). I agree that callable being a predicate means that there probably isn't an aesthetically pleasing way of doing this.

@kj I'm a little out of my comfort zone, so please let me know if you see a better way of doing things :-)

[gvanrossum]

I'd like to pursue this for real; other issues for callable have popped up, https://bugs.python.org/issue42195 and https://bugs.python.org/issue40494 (https://bugs.python.org/issue40398 is also related but already fixed).

From 42195 I learn that __args ought to be hashable. I would prefer it to still be structured, e.g. callable[[int, str], float].__args should be ((int, str), float).

This means we have to change typing.Callable and collections.abc.Callable as well (the latter may share code with builtins.callable, but typing.Callable should probably stay separate, but returning the same structure).

[serhiy-storchaka]

Sorry, but making builtins.callable generic looks wrong to me. It is a predicate, not a constructor. If it would be called "iscallable" instead of "callable" nobody would propose to make it generic, right? It's just a coincidence that the name of this predicate equals to the name of typing.Callable and collections.abc.Callable.

builtins.callable was removed in Python 3.0 in favor of instance check for collections.Callable. Maybe removing it again (or renaming to iscallable) would solve confusion?

[isidentical]

Sorry, but making builtins.callable generic looks wrong to me. It is a predicate, not a constructor. If it would be called "iscallable" instead of "callable" nobody would propose to make it generic, right? It's just a coincidence that the name of this predicate equals to the name of typing.Callable and collections.abc.Callable.

I concur with Serhiy on this.

[gvanrossum]

Well, it's certainly no bug fix, but just as PEP-585 lets us write list[int] instead of typing.List[int], it could be considered useful to be able to write callable[[int, int], str] instead of typing.Callable[[int, int], str].

It's easy enough to make it work so that callable(x) returns a bool but callable[X, Y] returns a built-in subclass of types.GenericAlias (the built-in type).

That said, I don't have data about how popular Callable is compared to other types (Sequence/Iterable etc. which will remain in collections.abc). Maybe someone can do some grepping of popular projects?

[serhiy-storchaka]

From implementation perspective it is not easy at all. You will need to create a special class with methods __call and __getitem (and several other methods and attributes, like __repr, __reduce, __name, __doc, __module, __text_signature, etc) and make builtins.callable an instance instead of just built-in function. It can also affect performance of callable().

[hauntsaninja]

My implementation in PR 22848 turns callable into a type and uses __new__. It isn't too bad. It does appear to affect performance of callable though.

Here's some data on how often typing imports are used. This is the number of files in which from typing import X is present in mypy_primer's corpus (searched using the AST). My read of this is that Callable is meaningfully more used than anything else in collections.abc.

'Optional': 2563
'Any': 2402
'List': 2383
'Dict': 2150
'Tuple': 1592
'Union': 1269
'Callable': 1058
'Iterable': 609
'Set': 580
'cast': 505
'Sequence': 465
'Type': 438
'Iterator': 385
'TYPE_CHECKING': 357
'TypeVar': 302
'Mapping': 301
'Generator': 194
'NamedTuple': 138
'Text': 127
'IO': 120
'Awaitable': 116
...

[serhiy-storchaka]

We specially introduced __mro_entries__ to make types in the typing module not classes. Turning builtins.callable into a class is a step back.

[gvanrossum]

Hm. Shantanu's list shows that the next thing we should make usable without importing typing is Any. (I haven't any idea how to do that other than just making it a builtin.) But after that we should definitely tackle Callable, and the obvious way to do it is to make callable indexable. But does that mean it has to be a type? I don't think so -- it just has to be an object whose class defines both __call and __getitem. Pseudo code:

class callable:
    def __call__(self, thing):
        return hasattr(thing, "__call__")
    def __getitem__(self, index):
        # returns a types.GenericAlias instance
        # (or a subclass thereof)

I honestly don't think that we should support isinstance(x, callable) even if some people think that that should work.

In any case, we should first answer the questions that are still open for bpo-42195 -- what should __args__ for [cC]allable[[int, int], str] be? (int, int, str) or ((int, int), str) or ([int, int], str) or (Tuple[int, int], str) are all still on the table. Please refer to that issue.

[serhiy-storchaka]

Could not object replace Any?

[gvanrossum]

No, they both have a different meaning. Object has (almost) no attributes. Any has all attributes.