On 1/11/21 10:29 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Given that PEP 563 is now the default in unreleased Python 3.10, does it make sense to introduce yet another __future__ import? What would happen if you just piggybacked your idea onto that change?
Part of my proposal is to deprecate PEP 563's semantics. If -> PEP 649 <- was accepted, we'd undo making PEP 563 the default behavior in 3.10; the behavior would instead remain gated behind the "from __future__ import annotations". It'd then go through a standard deprecation cycle (which is, what, three versions?) before finally being removed.
(If you look at the revision history of my repo, you'll see that my first checkin was to reverse Batuhan's checkin from October 6, restoring the "from __future__" gate for annotations. Sorry, Batuhan!)
Frankly I'd be astonished if -> PEP 649 <- received such unanimous acceptance that it become the new default Python semantics without a "from __future__" introductory period. You'd need a bigger brain than I have to think through all the ramifications of that sort of radical decision! But if the steering committee requested it, I don't expect I'd put a fight.
Cheers, //arry/
_______________________________________________ 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/D6BZKYWOTC5NQOVHEVLM53CINJWWPMBQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
