On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 12:24 AM Noah Peter May <m...@noahpmay.dev> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I'm not certain if this has been brought up before, but I felt like bringing > it to the table anyway. > > As the title says, it would be convenient to represent a union type with the > or operator. >
Yep! You're not the only one to want this. > The next is actually a question: do we use "bitwise or" or "boolean or" (aka > "|" vs "or")? I honestly don't know which would be preferable. The latter is > more readable than the other but requires 3-4 characters (including > whitespace) vs just 1-3 extra. Both are shorter than the 8-9 chars for the > traditional union. I'll just use both in the examples for now. > The "or" operator is defined very thoroughly by the language and can't be used for this, so the decision is made for you already - the "|" operator is the only way to go. > In either case, we could override the or-dunder method to return the "old" > union representation of types > > List | Tuple == Union[List, Tuple] > (Union[List, Tuple] or Union[int, str]) == Union[List, Tuple, int, str] > > This should allow any code relying on run-time annotations to work as > expected. Yep, agreed. Have a look at PEP 604, which is looking at this same idea. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0604/ I'm personally in favour :) ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WQ2TI5YV5RNTCOGBS4ZVPHZEARXDLLJI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
