On 10/21/21 5:42 PM, Damian Shaw wrote:
Sorry for the naive question but why doesn't "TYPE_CHECKING" work
under PEP 649?
I think I've seen others mention this but as the code object isn't
executed until inspected then if you are just using annotations for
type hints it should work fine?
Yes, it works fine in that case.
Is the use case wanting to use annotations for type hints and real
time inspection but you also don't want to import the objects at run time?
If that's really such a strong use cause couldn't PEP 649 be modified
to return a repr of the code object when it gets a NameError? Either
by attaching it to the NameError exception or as part of a ForwardRef
style object if that's how PEP 649 ends up getting implemented?
That's the use case.
Your proposal is one of several suggesting that type annotations are
special enough to break the rules. I don't like this idea. But you'll
be pleased to know there are a lot of folks in the "suppress the
NameError" faction, including Guido (IIUC).
See also this PR against co_annotations, proposing returning a new
AnnotationName object when evaluating the annotations raises a NameError.
https://github.com/larryhastings/co_annotations/pull/3
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/O75ZCWHRCZEINYRO2QJFKKWXP4GW2WVM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
