On Mon, 12 Apr 2021, 1:48 pm Guido van Rossum, <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> > At the very least I recommend that the SC take this into account when they > consider PEP 649. Accepting it has some nice benefits when it comes to the > scoping rules for annotations -- but it would forever close the door for > the "relaxed annotation syntax" idea you brought up. (Isn't it fun to be on > the SC. :-) > I may have missed someone else mentioning this, but I don't think this concern is necessarily true, as even if PEP 649 were accepted, the only pre-PEP-563 constraints it would reintroduce would be that all future type annotation syntax: * have a defined runtime effect; * that runtime effect be consistent with normal expressions when reusing existing syntax; and * be explicitly quoted when using type hinting syntax from later Python versions in code that needs to run on earlier versions Any PEPs adding new type hinting specific syntax would be free to define the runtime effect of the new syntax as "produces a string containing the text of the part of the annotation using the new syntax, as if the new syntax were explicitly quoted", even if we decided not to go ahead with the idea of applying those "produces a string" semantics to *all* annotations. Cheers, Nick. > >
_______________________________________________ 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/DLCZHSXCRBVGCXBAKG7SXI6LBFQH23X7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
