Is the following behavior expected ?

class MyProp(property):
    pass

class Foo(object):
    @property
    def bar(self):
        '''Get a bar.'''

    @MyProp
    def baz(self):
        '''Get a baz.'''

    
>>> print Foo.bar.__doc__ 
Get a bar.
>>> print Foo.baz.__doc__
None

What is happening here is that when __doc__ is looked up, it is found
first among the attributes of the class type.  __doc__ is special, and
types define it to be None if it not set to anything specific.  So the
docstring for an instance of a subclass of property is None, or the
docstring of the subclass if one is provided.  The other property
attributes aren't affected since they aren't "special" attributes on
types, and so get looked up on the base class as expected.

I believe the fix is to have property's __init__ check to see if it is
dealing with a subclass, and if so to insert the __doc__ string into the
instance's __dict__.

Patch attached.  Needs review, especially since I'm new to internals stuff.

Fixes from review on #python-dev by Benjamin.

It looks like I also need to look at property_copy.

Updated patch that updates property_copy so that the __doc__ string is
also copied appropriately when getter, setter, or deller are used.  A
bunch more tests, as well. I refactored property_copy to make it reuse
the logic in property_init directly.

Unfortunately I've got a refleak somewhere in there (regrtest -R :: says
[8, 8, 8, 8].  Hopefully fresh and more experienced eyes can help me out.

Updated patch with refleak fixed.  Thanks Georg.

Reviewed by Georg and approved on #python-dev.  Committed in r72299,
r72301, r72302, and r72304.

A subclass of property doesn't always have writable __doc__, especially 
what is implemented in C.  This actually causes a problem with 
Boost.Python's StaticProperty.

References:
- http://mail.python.org/pipermail/cplusplus-sig/2009-August/014747.html
- http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/10/157512.php
- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/boost1.38/+bug/457688

I created a patch against trunk and 2.6-maint that lets it simply ignore
the error that might happen during PyObject_SetAttrString();

and the other one

It seems to me that all that patch does is re-enable the bug (in the
extension class context) that the patch for this issue was a workaround
for.  I think perhaps the correct fix is to look at how the __doc__
attribute is found in the general case and see if it can be fixed there,
allowing the removal of the workaround in property.

See for example this sub-thread on python-dev:

http://www.mail-archive.com/python-dev@python.org/msg42786.html

Sorry, I don't quite have an idea on the part "these patches reenable
the bug". The script of the first message yields exactly the same result
both with the original 2.6.4 and the patched.  Assuming the weirdness
you referred to is different from 5890, I'd say the workaround
introduced by the original patch to property class didn't correctly
avoid the issue in the first place. I mean the fix should be fixed anyhow.

Well, I haven't worked with boost or any other extension class that
defines a subclass of property.  If MyProp is such a subclass, would
print Fro.baz.__doc__ print "Get a baz" in 2.6.2 but raise an error in
2.6.3/4, or would it print None?

Regardless of which one it does, I think there is a better fix than
patching the original patch in this issue, assuming I can code it and
get approval to apply it.

On the other hand, the suggested 'refix' may be appropriate for 2.6.5.

@r.david.murray

> If MyProp is such a subclass, would
> print Fro.baz.__doc__ print "Get a baz" in 2.6.2 but raise an error in
> 2.6.3/4, or would it print None?

Just let it return None as they were for now.  I completely agree
there's a better fix like delegating the access to __doc__ to the base
class (property class in this specific case).