On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:22 PM Pradeep Kumar Srinivasan < gohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses, everyone. Overall, it seems like there were no > strong objections to the proposal. > > I didn't hear much about Question 2, though: Should we propose features > beyond present-day `Callable` in the same PEP or defer it to a future PEP? > > In case that question got lost in the other details, feel free to respond > here. If not, I'll take it there aren't strong opinions either way. > Sorry I didn't make it to the meeting. You know my opinion. :-) > Some of my other takeaways: > > + Address the implications of the syntax changes for Python. > In particular, when the syntax is used in a non-annotation position, it must evaluate to some object that represents the information present in the syntax (like Callable does ATM). + Address edge cases like trailing commas, `Concatenate` for `ParamSpec`, > and runtime value of the expression. > + Explicitly discuss the function-name-as-a-type proposal. > > We will be drafting the PEP over the coming month. > Awesome. You have my blessing. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/EKZKGZC72O4AEQTQOD3IHXDIABNHNSLO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
