On 11/26/21 1:13 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 05:14, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> My memory is also hazy, but I'm quite sure that *in my mind* annotations were >> intended as a compromise between conflicting proposals for *typing*. We didn't >> have agreement on the syntax or semantics, but we did know we wanted to do >> something with types eventually. > > More hazy memories here, but I think the original proposal left open > the possibility of annotations not being types at all - for example, > being docstrings for the arguments, or option names for a "function > call to CLI" tool, etc. I think that some libraries took this approach > (in particular the "CLI builder" idea).
I have one such tool. Fortunately for me, I strongly dislike having the annotations inside the function header as it quickly gets difficult for me to read, so I was already using decorator syntax for the annotations. When PEP 484 was accepted I just changed where the annotations were being stored from __annotations__ to my own dunder.
-- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ 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/VC6NSJ4MXJOTNBKO7OOBSV7JHQ5JBPLO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
