# PEP 813 - The Pretty Print Protocol

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242>\
**Category:** PEPs\
**Created:** [February 21, 2026, 6:29pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242 "2026-02-21T18:29:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 101

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![trey](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/trey/32/20518_2.png) [@trey](https://discuss.python.org/u/trey)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2026, 5:02pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242/101 "2026-10-09T17:02:39Z")

</div>

I would love to see this affect ` __repr__ ` by default as well.

This was suggested [earlier in this thread](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242/40) as a change to the default `repr()` behind a ` __future__ ` import, but it seems like changing the default `object. __repr__ ` implementation wouldn’t necessitate a ` __future__ ` import, since a custom ` __repr__ ` would overwrite it.

I’m imagining that the default ` __repr__ ` implementation would become effectively be something like:

```python
def __repr__ (self):
    cls = type(self)

    if not hasattr(self, " __pprint__"):
        # The current __repr__ behavior
        return f"<{cls. __module__ }.{cls. __name__ } object at {hex(id(self))}>"

    arguments = []
    for item in self. __pprint__ ():
        match item:
            case tuple((name, value, default)) if value == default:
                continue
            case tuple((name, value)) | tuple((name, value, _)) if name:
                arguments.append(f"{name}={value!r}")
            case tuple((_, value)):
                arguments.append(repr(value))
            case value:
                arguments.append(repr(value))
    return f"{cls. __name__ }({', '.join(arguments)})"

```

This way instead of implementing both ` __pprint__ ` and ` __repr__ ` for each class:

```python
class Bass:
    def __init__ (self, strings: int, pickups: str, active: bool=False):
        self._strings = strings
        self._pickups = pickups
        self._active = active

    def __repr__ (self):
        class_name = type(self). __name__
        if self._active is False:
            return f"{class_name}({self._strings}, pickups={self._pickups})"
        return f"{class_name}({self._strings}, pickups={self._pickups}, active={self._active})"

    def __pprint__ (self):
        yield self._strings
        yield 'pickups', self._pickups
        yield 'active', self._active, False

```

I could just implement ` __pprint__ ` and get nice `repr` and `str` output for free:

```python
class Bass:
    def __init__ (self, strings: int, pickups: str, active: bool=False):
        self._strings = strings
        self._pickups = pickups
        self._active = active

    def __pprint__ (self):
        yield self._strings
        yield 'pickups', self._pickups
        yield 'active', self._active, False

```

In that case, I do wonder whether ` __pprint__ ` should be renamed to something like ` __repr_args__ `.

From [this comment](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242/61) from @barry it sounds like this might be out of scope for this PEP… but I wanted to note it as I have long wanted something to make generating `repr` output easier ([just made a thread on this](https://discuss.python.org/t/include-a-helper-for-writing-repr-in-the-standard-library/109406)) and something to more make extending `repr` output in subclasses easier. This seems like it could accomplish both.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-813-the-pretty-print-protocol/106242)._