Daniel Watkins added the comment: Having ironed out my confusion over typing the method, I agree that making the types more obvious is not a compelling argument for this change.
That said, I think the current API has been confusing to me in the past, and I think the proposed change is still a worthwhile improvement for users of this module. On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM Guido van Rossum <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum added the comment: > > I think the proposed change is not worth it. Developments in type checking > (in particular overloading) make it unambiguous what the return type will > be from just a static inspection of the call site. (Given that the _UNSET > value is intended to be private.) See also > https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/3805#issuecomment-320561797 > > ---------- > nosy: +gvanrossum > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue31129> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue31129> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
