On 11/17/2021 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Does PEP 563 or 649 satisfy static and dynamic typing needs?
In the interest of full transparency, we want to let the Python community know
that the Steering Council continues to discuss PEP 563 (Postponed Evaluation of
Annotations) and PEP 649 (Deferred Evaluation Of Annotations Using
Descriptors). We have concluded that we lack enough detailed information to
make a decision in favor of either PEP. As we see it, adopting either PEP 563
or PEP 649 as the default would be insufficient. They will not fully resolve
the existing problems these PEPs intend to fix, will break some existing code,
and likely don’t address all the use cases and requirements across the static
and dynamic typing constituents. We are also uncertain as to the best
migration path from the current state of affairs.
Defer decision on PEP 563 and 649 in 3.11
As such, at this time, the only reasonable path forward that the SC sees is to
defer the decision in Python 3.11 again, essentially keeping the 3.10 status
quo. We know that this is far from ideal, but it’s also the safest path since
we can’t clearly make the situation better, and we don’t have confidence that
either PEP solves the problems once and for all. Pragmatically, we don’t want
to make the situation worse, and we really don’t want to find ourselves back
here again in a couple of releases because we overlooked an important
requirement for a set of users.
"In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
I appreciate the carefully articulated reasoning being given with these
PEP decisions.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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/S46JI4E3OZJUUSVZLDPAP5A5MOMAMD5O/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
