Fantastic, Petr! Thanks for letting us know - and thank you once again for
your patience with our last-minute changes! We'll go ahead and mark the PEP
as accepted, and merge our CPython implementation soon.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 08:34, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 17. 11. 21 23:47, Barry Warsaw
> Even less, actually.
> The PEP doesn't make a very clear distinction between invalid Python
> syntax vs. invalid type annotation, so I wanted to check if we're on the
> same page here: the newly valid syntax will be subject to PEP 387.
> We clearly are on the same page, and I don't think you
*First point (indexing assignment)*
[Guido]
> Agreed. I just misremembered this, my bad! Please do the clarification
etc.
Will do.
*Second point (multiple TypeVarTuples)*
[Guido]
> I would love it for the cases where it's *not* ambiguous to just work
(once type checkers support it). I'd like
[Matthew]
> 1. The wording of the 'Multiple Type Variable Tuples: Not Allowed'
section - you're saying that we're being a bit imprecise here in saying
that we disallow multiple TypeVarTuples in a type parameter list, given
that in e.g. `def f(x: *Ts1, y: *Ts2)`, both Ts1 and Ts2 are members of
Thanks also Kevin for this feedback!
Good point about being careful to distinguish type parameters vs type
arguments. If I understand correctly, you're making two points:
1. The wording of the 'Multiple Type Variable Tuples: Not Allowed' section
- you're saying that we're being a bit imprecise
Thanks for this feedback, Petr!
*First point (indexing assignment)*
Great catch; we hadn't thought about this. I agree it would be better to
keep these in sync.
I just tested this in our current CPython implementation, and can confirm
it looks like this already works fine. So as much as I agree
Thanks, Brett. We'll notify you once we've resolved the issue.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:30, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I put the PEP back on our agenda to discuss this.
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:40 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Hi Barry,
>>
>> That's fantastic news!
>>
>> Somewhat
Hi Barry,
Absolutely fantastic - thank you for letting us know! As Guido says,
there's one final thing that we thought would be easy to resolve but has
actually turned out to be a little tricky. Happy to proceed as you think is
best here.
Matthew
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 22:33, Guido van Rossum
Oops, sorry for the slow reply - I'm not subscribed to this mailing list.
As Mehdi2277 says, this would indeed require the Map operator we'll introduce
in a future PEP.
But that's a good point about the `*Tuple[int, Ts]` syntax. I think the
interpretation of it that would be most consistent
hew Rahtz via Python-Dev wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > We've got to the stage now with PEP 646 that we're feeling pretty happy
> with
> > it. So far though we've mainly been workshopping it in typing-sig, so as
> PEP 1
> > requires we're asking for some fe
Thanks for the feedback, Brett! This is a very reasonable response given
the implications of a syntax change. We'll work on a more thorough
implementation and add details to the PEP of the grammar changes that are
necessary, and see you again in the cycle for Python 3.11.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at
Hi everyone,
We've got to the stage now with PEP 646 that we're feeling pretty happy
with it. So far though we've mainly been workshopping it in typing-sig, so
as PEP 1 requires we're asking for some feedback here too before submitting
it to the steering council.
If you have time over the next
12 matches
Mail list logo
