My 2¢ from a position of *extreme ignorance*, not to mention zero
interest in annotations (all welcome to shoot me down in flames, or
treat me with contemptuous silence. But *occasionall*y the "idiot's"
point of view is worth considering, so here goes).
ISTM that typing/annotations have been allowed to drift without a clear
end in view, rather like a ship that is steered in one direction by one
person, then in another by someone else, with nobody knowing what the
destination port is. As witness the conflicting views in this thread.
At the risk of being rude, the phrase "headless chickens" comes to mind.
ISTM that it is time to take a step back and decide on a definite
policy. Perhaps a definitive pronouncement from Guido. Or the SC. Or a
discussion from all parties that reaches an acceptable conclusion. Then
stick to it. Even if it causes some backward incompatibility - ISTM
that things have changed so rapidly that this really would be an
acceptable evil if it results in clarity for the future. Meanwhile, do
not change anything, do not approve any PEPs, until this conclusion is
reached.
I apologise if I am being presumptuous in commenting on a subject I know
almost nothing about.
/I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,//
//Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.//
/
Best wishes
Rob Cliffe
On 25/11/2021 23:51, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 15:16, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Executive summary:
The typing-suspicious crowd has a valid complaint about PEPs 563 and
649, but it's not that they weren't warned.
Christopher Barker writes:
> Annotations can be, and are, used for other things than "typing". I
> just noticed that PEP 563 apparently deprecated those other uses
> (well, sort of: "uses for annotations incompatible with the
> aforementioned PEPs should be considered deprecated")
Not a PEP proponent (or even a typing user), but I thought this had
been made clear long ago. My understanding is that optional,
incremental type hints are and have always been considered the primary
use case for annotations by the BDFL and AFAICT the SC following the
BDFL. If compatibility with typing is an issue, then the burden of
implementing that is on the other application. Typing *might* do
something to help, but it's not obligated to do so.
This was not my understanding of annotations when they were introduced e.g.:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/#use-cases
As I remember it, a decision about the purpose of annotations was
*explicitly* not made when they were introduced. It was clear that
typing was a major potential use and then at some point (around about
the introduction of the typing module) there seemed to be a shift in
people's understanding of what annotations were for. Eventually that
reached the point that people who were particularly interested in
typing had no memory of the fact that the purpose of annotations had
not really been specified as being about typing in the first place.
It looks to me like Chris has identified in PEP 563 what is
potentially the earliest reference (in an accepted PEP) to the idea
that non-typing uses of annotations are to be discouraged.
--
Oscar
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list --python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email topython-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived
athttps://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/BERGEZTXG4XSEIJQHQWC3IZLXYEZPZ6C/
Code of Conduct:http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
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/7NRLCIENXLWBPM3EA67ZIN3X3K25DMEY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
