[Python] What is the purpose of having @odp.base_constructor if it's being assigned to subclass constructors as well?

[anthony-S93]

I assume the purpose of @odp.base_constructor is so that we can differentiate the highlighting between the base constructor and the constructor of subclasses?

@olimorris This seems a bit counter-intuitive to me and I was hoping someone can provide an explanation.

[olimorris]

Referencing the after/queries/python/highlights.scm file:

((function_definition name: (identifier) @odp.base_constructor)
(#any-of? @odp.base_constructor "__new__" "__init__"))

It allows the scheme to reference __new__ and __init__ directly. Perhaps it should have been called odp.initializer?

[anthony-S93]

For other Python built-in types (the ones that begin with capital letters), treesitter currently uses @constructor for the highlight.

Is it possible to follow the same convention? I mean, conceptually, these two calls should be understood as statements that instantiate classes:

# Both statements create instances of built-in classes
# There's no reason for one to be treated as a constructor call and another to be treated as a function call. 
x = TypeError()
y = list()   

[olimorris]

I'd be wary of calling it @constructor as it would overwrite the Python parser's groups (as I erroneously did in #167). We could call it @odp.constructor and then link it to @constructor.

[anthony-S93]

I'd be wary of calling it @constructor as it would overwrite the Python parser's groups (as I erroneously did in #167). We could call it @odp.constructor and then link it to @constructor.

@olimorris Sounds good. Will this be implemented?

[olimorris]

Have pushed this in the latest commit 👍🏼

[anthony-S93]

@olimorris Saw this. Created a pull request to add in the rest of the built-in types.