[3.11] Clarify Self interaction with subclasses (GH-107511) (#107549)

Co-authored-by: Alexandru Mărășteanu <alexei@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
Miss Islington (bot) 2023-08-01 13:31:22 -07:00 committed by GitHub
parent 46cae02085
commit 623b0d9c59
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23

View file

@ -905,13 +905,17 @@ using ``[]``.
For example::
from typing import Self
from typing import Self, reveal_type
class Foo:
def return_self(self) -> Self:
...
return self
class SubclassOfFoo(Foo): pass
reveal_type(Foo().return_self()) # Revealed type is "Foo"
reveal_type(SubclassOfFoo().return_self()) # Revealed type is "SubclassOfFoo"
This annotation is semantically equivalent to the following,
albeit in a more succinct fashion::
@ -925,15 +929,11 @@ using ``[]``.
...
return self
In general if something currently follows the pattern of::
class Foo:
def return_self(self) -> "Foo":
...
return self
You should use :data:`Self` as calls to ``SubclassOfFoo.return_self`` would have
``Foo`` as the return type and not ``SubclassOfFoo``.
In general, if something returns ``self``, as in the above examples, you
should use ``Self`` as the return annotation. If ``Foo.return_self`` was
annotated as returning ``"Foo"``, then the type checker would infer the
object returned from ``SubclassOfFoo.return_self`` as being of type ``Foo``
rather than ``SubclassOfFoo``.
Other common use cases include:
@ -941,6 +941,17 @@ using ``[]``.
of the ``cls`` parameter.
- Annotating an :meth:`~object.__enter__` method which returns self.
You should not use ``Self`` as the return annotation if the method is not
guaranteed to return an instance of a subclass when the class is
subclassed::
class Eggs:
# Self would be an incorrect return annotation here,
# as the object returned is always an instance of Eggs,
# even in subclasses
def returns_eggs(self) -> "Eggs":
return Eggs()
See :pep:`673` for more details.
.. versionadded:: 3.11