Apr 26, 2022 20:32:55 Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com>:
How would runtime consumers of annotations use this?
--
Eric
On Apr 26, 2022, at 12:05 PM, Thomas Kehrenberg <t...@posteo.net>
wrote:
If the problem is mostly type annotations, then another potential
solution would be to make use of .pyi files, which are not hamstrung
by
circular definitions. The idea would be that type checkers would
merge
the annotations from .pyi files into the annotations in the
corresponding .py file.
So:
a.py:
from b import B
class A:
value: B
b.py:
class B:
value = None
b.pyi:
from typing import Optional
from a import A
class B:
value: Optional[A] = ...
The pyi files would kind of act like header files that are used in
other
languages. It would mean that type checkers need to check the .pyi
files against the code in the .py files to verify that they're
consistent with one another.
-thomas
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VWPWN5KWTRPP6VS4PEHJA4SRVMUDU5WR/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
They wouldn't. But I thought PEP 649 solves the runtime problems,
and that the remaining problems are with static typing
of circular definitions.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/LHHE7HPSKNT6UAQGSZPCMU5XJATAARRB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
