On 8/9/2021 11:25 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:30 AM Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see PEP 649 accepted. There are a number of
issues on bpo where people expect dataclass's field.type to be an actual
Python object representing a type, and not a string. This field is
copied directly from __annotations__. If we stick with PEP 563's string
annotations, I'll probably just close these issues as "won't fix", and
tell the caller they need to convert the strings to Python objects
themselves. If 649 is accepted, then they'll all get their wish, and in
addition I can remove some ugly logic from dataclasses.
I don't think there is much difference.
PEP 563 is not default.
But the intent is/was to make it the default. That was the case in 3.10,
up until right before the release of beta 1.
And PEP 563 is not the only source of
stringified annotation.
So Accepting PEP 649 doesn't mean "they'll all get their wish". We
need to say "won't fix" anyway.
If 649 is accepted, there will be few places where stringified
annotations will be needed. For example, forward references that are
defined before __annotations__ is examined will not need to be specified
as strings. From the PEP: "Actually, annotations would become much
easier to use, as they would now also handle forward references.
Do we need to do anything here to move forward on this issue? I've
chatted with Larry and Mark Shannon, who have some additional thoughts
and I'm sure will chime in.
Currently, reference implementation of PEP 649 has been suspended.
We need to revive it and measure performance/memory impact.
Agreed.
--
Eric
_______________________________________________
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/CDWMGUEUW4OCVATVGSFO7BX7CPOI2L6S/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
