Hi,
First of all let me say that I agree with the aims of PEP 558 and most
of the design.
I do find the wording of the PEP itself a bit confusing in a couple of
places.
This critique is based on my understanding of the PEP.
If I am mistaken in my misunderstanding, then treat that as an
Great point, Serhiy.
I agree it would be very confusing to have types.Union and typing.Union.
types.UnionType, types.TypeUnionType, types.UnionTypeType all are much
better IMHO.
Cheers,
Luciano
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:25 AM Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> In 3.10 the union type (the type
