Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > [...] > I suppose it is, especially because there seems to be nothing that > prevents you from getting runtime annotations in the enclosing class/module > ​: > > > number: int > > @call > def number(): > return 42 >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >> >> I still don't understand what would happen with __annotations__. If >> the decorator returns a non-function, one would expect the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Naomi Seyfer wrote: > > Yep, interested in implementing it! I will put implementation time on my > > schedule and tell y'all when it is, for holding myself accountable

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Naomi Seyfer wrote: > Yep, interested in implementing it! I will put implementation time on my > schedule and tell y'all when it is, for holding myself accountable -- it > turns out I never do anything not on my schedule. > I still don't

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

Yep, interested in implementing it! I will put implementation time on my schedule and tell y'all when it is, for holding myself accountable -- it turns out I never do anything not on my schedule. On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote: > On 30 May 2017 at 23:02, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> All in all I'm still leaning towards Naomi's original proposal -- it >> looks simpler to implement as well. >> > > OK, I think having a bit of

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On 30 May 2017 at 23:02, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > All in all I'm still leaning towards Naomi's original proposal -- it looks > simpler to implement as well. > > OK, I think having a bit of verbosity is absolutely fine if we win simplicity of implementation (for both static

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

> On 15 May 2017 at 10:48, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > >> Would __annotations__ be set by the decorator? To me, not setting them >> would seem weird, but cases where the result is not a function could >> be weird. I also don't see a mention of this only working in stubs. >> > It

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On 15 May 2017 at 10:48, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > > Here's the proposed text (wordsmithing suggestions in the PR please): > > > > +Decorators > > +-- > > + > > +Decorators can modify the types of the functions or classes they > > +decorate. Use the ``decorated_type``

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > There's a PR to the peps proposal here: > https://github.com/python/peps/pull/242 > > The full text of the current proposal is below. The motivation for this is > that for complex decorators, even if the type checker can

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:54:26PM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > I'm really new to the mailing list. Can someone just summarise the > preceding message in 5 to 10 lines like what it is, what type is it or when > does it happen It is an update to PEP 484, adding support for

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

I think you're right that the redefinition style is easier to read for complicated stuff... It also seems more complicated in a way I can't put my finger on. The overload precedent helps. Currently leaning towards Jukka being right, vague worries about extra complication be damned.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

Even if Callable types will soon support keyword arguments, the syntax for Callables will look quite different from function definitions and this inconsistency may hurt readability, at least for more complex signatures. We could work around this by using the def syntax for the declared type of a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

Stay tuned for the pep that allows callable to take keyword args. > On May 9, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > The idea seems reasonable to me when viewing type hints as a form of > documentation as it helps remind people how they are expected to call the > final

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

The idea seems reasonable to me when viewing type hints as a form of documentation as it helps remind people how they are expected to call the final function. One worry I do have, though, is Callable doesn't support keyword-only parameters, so declared_type won't work in all cases without

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

I'm really new to the mailing list. Can someone just summarise the preceding message in 5 to 10 lines like what it is, what type is it or when does it happen Thanks for all, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer Vacoas, Mauritius https://abdurrahmaanjanhangeer.wordpress.com/

[Python-Dev] PEP 484 update proposal: annotating decorated declarations

There's a PR to the peps proposal here: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/242 The full text of the current proposal is below. The motivation for this is that for complex decorators, even if the type checker can figure out what's going on (by taking the signature of the decorator into account),