[Python-Dev] In support of PEP 649

I've read the recent discussions regarding PEP 649 and PEP 563 with interest, Larry Hastings recently contacted me when prompted

[Python-Dev] Re: In support of PEP 649

There are a number of issues around recursive types, in general PEP 563 doesn't make a big difference either way in this case. I think you mean something like from pydantic import BaseModel from typing import Optional class Foo(BaseModel): x: int foo: Optional['Foo']

[Python-Dev] Re: In support of PEP 649

> > As far as I know, both Pydantic and marshmallow start using annotation > for runtime type after PEP 563 is accepted. Am I right? Not quite, pydantic was released in June 2017 (see HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14477222) and always used annotations, PEP 563 was created in

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] PEP 563 and Python 3.10.

This is great news! Thanks so much for hearing us and putting up with our last minute request. I'm sure we can find a solution that, while not perfect, can satisfy most of the people most of the time. Samuel ___ Python-Dev mailing list --

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 563 in light of PEP 649

0. Samuel -- Samuel Colvin ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/l

[Python-Dev] Re: In support of PEP 649

Thank you everyone for your responses. I entirely accept that I should have brought this up earlier, perhaps much earlier. In my defence, when PEP 563 first came on my radar I assumed that get_type_hint() would be improved before it became the default behaviour, AFAIK it hasn't really

[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] The cursed fourth Python 3.11 beta (3.11.0b4) is available

? -- Samuel Colvin 07801160713 On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 20:32, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: > BSD-style checksum format hashes for the release artefacts: > > SHA256 (python-3.11.0b4-embed-arm64.zip) = > 272c6bb4948c597f6578f64c2b15a70466c5dfb49f9b84dba57a84e59e7bd4ef > SHA256 (python-3.1

[Python-Dev] Re: Switching to Discourse

se case? Samuel -- Samuel Colvin On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 18:06, Skip Montanaro wrote: > I have a perhaps stupid question. Is Discord the same as > discuss.python.org, just by another name? I find the similarity in > names a bit confusing. > > Skip > __

[Python-Dev] Re: Switching to Discourse

. Before going "all in" with discuss.python.org/Discourse I think GH discussions should be seriously considered. Samuel -- Samuel Colvin On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 12:19, Petr Viktorin wrote: > Hello, > Currently development discussions are split between multiple > communicatio

[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] The cursed fourth Python 3.11 beta (3.11.0b4) is available

or exactly this reason (at least for dates, for datetimes ISO8601 gets pretty wacky <https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/>) Samuel -- Samuel Colvin 07801160713 On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 05:39, Stephen J. Turnbull < stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alan G. Isaac writes: > &g

[Python-Dev] Re: Switching to Discourse

the discussion specific to the repo With Organisation Discussions <https://github.blog/changelog/2022-04-12-organization-discussions/>, discussions are attached to the organisation, not a repr. Samuel -- Samuel Colvin On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 19:45, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >