Hi, Side note: it would be nice to add "typing: " prefix or mention "type annotation" or "type check" in the title of PEPs which are about that.
Just from the PEP title, it's hard *for me* to guess that it's about type annotations. Examples of other PEP titles which confused me: PEP 612 – Parameter Specification Variables PEP 645 – Allow writing optional types as x? PEP 646 – Variadic Generics PEP 647 – User-Defined Type Guards PEP 673 – Self Type PEP 675 - Arbitrary Literal String Type PEP 677 – Callable Type Syntax First, I understood that "Arbitrary Literal String Type" was adding a new built-in types for "literal strings" :-) Nope. It's just about type annotations ;-) From what I understood, the purpose of these PEPs outside type annotations is limited or non existent :-) Victor On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:51 PM Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > With the latest wording changes, PEP 681 – Data Class Transforms is now > fully accepted. Feel free to mark it as such at your convenience. > > Happy typing, > — Petr, on behalf of the Steering Council > > > On 23. 04. 22 13:26, Petr Viktorin wrote: > > Hello, > > As an initial implementation that will be improved in the future, the > > specification in PEP 681 is fine. Feel free to add the decorator to > > Python 3.11 at your convenience. > > > > However, the PEP includes several worrying recommendations like: > > > > - we recommend that the maintainers of attrs move away from the legacy > > semantics and adopt auto_attribs behaviors by default. > > - We chose not to support this feature and recommend that attrs users > > avoid converters. > > - Attrs users should use the dataclass-standard eq and order parameter > > names instead. > > > > These are probably meant as recommendations from typing-sig, but an > > accepted PEP represents consensus of the entire Python community. A > > typing PEP is not an appropriate place to make recommendations like > > this, especially without reaching out to the maintainer of attrs. > > As far as I know,the attrs and pydantic libraries are using the > > reference implementation, but their authors weren't consulted on the PEP > > itself. > > > > Could you either change the wording (e.g. say that the unsupported > > features need bespoke type-checker functionality for proper type > > checking), or work with attrs to make the same recommendations in its > > documentation? > > > > > > Happy typing, > > — Petr, on behalf of the Steering Council > _______________________________________________ > 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/R4A2IYLGFHKFDYJPSDA5NFJ6N7KRPJ6D/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. _______________________________________________ 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/LVNXFRLEMJXTEPC3N4M3NKQ4YRYQQZTA/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
