On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 02:31, Steven Barker wrote:
>
> While f-strings in class scope could theoretically be valid docstrings a lot
> of the time, the equivalent situation for function docstrings is much less
> positive. A function like this the one below obviously problematic, since the
>
Like others expressed, I don't like the idea of the typing and non-typing parts
of Python separating.
Has anyone considered adding a new special method like `__arrow__` or
something, that would be user-definable, but also defined for tuples and types
as returning a Callable? For example `int
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 2:58 AM Neil Muller
wrote:
> Having something that looks like it sets the docstring, but silently
> doesn't is very surprising, though. Linters can warn about this, but
> linters are not a universal fix, and this is something that
> superficially looks entirely
Hello all,
We’d like to make a last call for discussion on PEP 677: Callable Type Syntax
[1] before sending this to the Steering Council.
For context, PEP 677 proposes an arrow-like callable syntax for python:
```
(int, str) -> bool # equivalent to Callable[[int, str], bool]
```
Thanks
TL;DR: declaration only syntax is a non-starter. Even if we tried to add
specialised syntax that only appears in annotations, it would become a
regular Python expression almost immediately.
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 08:42:14AM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Is it more clear for readers to
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 4:57 AM Petr Viktorin wrote:
> Matthew Rahtz 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
Matthew Rahtz 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 feedback here too before submitting
it to the steering council.
If you
On 10/01/2022 17.01, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 01. 22 19:39, Christian Heimes wrote:
Hi,
I would like to remind everybody that Python's support for OpenSSL 3.0
is preliminary [1]. Python compiles with OpenSSL 3.0.0 and simple code
kinda works. However there are known performance
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 00:12, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> On 1/11/2022 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> class C: 'foo'
> ...
> >>> C.__doc__ == 'foo'
> True
>
> >>> class C: f'foo'
> ...
> >>> C.__doc__ == 'foo'
> False
> >>> C.__doc__ is None
> True
>
> And there's a test to make sure
