Batuhan Taskaya <isidenti...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I think I'd be okay if `foo[bar]: baz` and `foo.bar: baz` (etc.) didn't > generate any bytecode at all. Is that what you're proposing here? If so, and > assuming the code is reasonably straightforward, I'd say go ahead and make a > PR (and close the old OR). The thread raised some concerns regarding the verification of the lhs (the target), so the PR 23952 generates code for the lhs but omits the annotation part. > And FWIW changing how annotations are represented in the AST is out of scope > for this issue. (There are tricky edge cases there too.) Agreed, it already has a separate issue. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42737> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
