Abstract base class for Normalize #30178
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
After discussion on this weeks call I think we should go with the ABC flavor. Given:
If we are going to bring in a new language feature we should do that when it brings in a clear benefit so we should stick with ABC. |
|
The docs failure is real, The new class needs to be manually added to the rst. |
tacaswell
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2025
|
If I'm not mistaken, once you put the base class into Sphinx, you can replace the duplicate docstrings in the no-longer-base class with |
|
The doc build failure looks a bit cryptic, but I think putting Norm here will solve it |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is an alternative to #30149
It is created so that we can contrast full implementations of a protocol vs an abstract base class in light of the comment here #30149 (comment)
For context on why this is required, see the comment on the MultiNorm PR #29876 (comment)