On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> If we have to change the name I'd vote for string_annotations -- "lazy" > has too many other connotations (e.g. it might cause people to think it's > the thunks). I find str_annotations too abbreviated, and > stringify_annotations is too hard to spell. > > I can't say I disagree. And maybe importing string_annotations from the __future__ doesn't sound quite as sad as importing something from the __past__. Anyway, it's not obvious to me that it is the module author that should decide how the annotations are handled. See also this quote below: (Quoted from the end of https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-October/047311.html ) On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [*] Maybe somehow make the existing functionality a phantom easter > egg––a blast from the past which you can import and use, but which is > otherwise invisible :-). Then later give warnings and finally remove it > completely. > > But we need better smooth upgrade paths anyway, maybe something like: > > from __compat__ import unintuitive_decimal_contexts > > with unintuitive_decimal_contexts: > do_stuff() > > Now code bases can more quickly switch to new python versions and make > the occasional compatibility adjustments more lazily, while already > benefiting from other new language features. > > > ––Koos > > > -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
