On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 06:17:12PM +0200, Sebastian M. Ernst wrote:
> Data = Dict[str, Number]
>
> @typechecked
> def foo(bar: Data):
> print(bar)
> ```
>
> Yes, this is using run-time checks (typeguard), which works just fine.
> Only strings as keys and Number objects as values are going
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:20 AM Sebastian M. Ernst
wrote:
> PEP 589 introduces typed dictionaries, but for a fixed set of predefined
> keys (similar to struct-like constructs in other languages). In
> contrast, I am looking for an arbitrary number of typed keys/value pairs.
>
But that's
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 06:37:04PM -0400, Ricky Teachey wrote:
> You say a soft keyword isn't an option and I understand why, but what about
> one that is incredibly unlikely to have been used very often? I'm thinking
> of just a simple double underscore:
>
> >>> a = __
> >>> a
> 'a'
I
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:53 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 8:22 AM Jeremiah Paige wrote:
> >
> > Here is a pseudo-program showing where I would like to use this token in
> > my own code if it existed. I think besides the cases where one is forced
> to
> > always repeat the
El vie, 15 oct 2021 a las 14:42, Abdulla Al Kathiri (<
alkathiri.abdu...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> I don’t understand why tuple structure is not supported already. It makes
> reading the function signature a breeze and very natural. You can also do
> it without parentheses which mimics the return
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:37 PM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> You say a soft keyword isn't an option and I understand why, but what
> about one that is incredibly unlikely to have been used very often? I'm
> thinking of just a simple double underscore:
>
> >>> a = __
> >>> a
> 'a'
>
> This would be a
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM Jeremiah Paige wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:32 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I suspect there won’t be enough support for this proposal to ever make it
>> happen, but at the very least could you think of a different token? The
>> three left arrows just
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:32 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I suspect there won’t be enough support for this proposal to ever make it
> happen, but at the very least could you think of a different token? The
> three left arrows just look too weird (esp. in the REPL examples, where
> they strongly
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 8:22 AM Jeremiah Paige wrote:
>
> Here is a pseudo-program showing where I would like to use this token in
> my own code if it existed. I think besides the cases where one is forced to
> always repeat the variable name as a string (namedtuple, NewType) this
> is an easy
I don’t understand why tuple structure is not supported already. It makes
reading the function signature a breeze and very natural. You can also do it
without parentheses which mimics the return of multiple objects often seen in
functions(def func(*args: int) -> str, [int])
> On 14 Oct 2021,
I suspect there won’t be enough support for this proposal to ever make it
happen, but at the very least could you think of a different token? The
three left arrows just look too weird (esp. in the REPL examples, where
they strongly seem to suggest a false symmetry with the ‘>>>’ prompt. How
did
> On 14 Oct 2021, at 12:21 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>
> Why abbreviate list and tuple but not string?
>
Empty strings would be confusing as a type unless you mean a Literal empty
string. We just limit the picture of the type to lists, tuples, dicts, and
sets. Builtin most often
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:27 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:02 AM Jeremiah Paige wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:30 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 6:24 AM Jeremiah Paige
> wrote:
> >> > Bellow are some examples of where I believe the
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 18:07, Sebastian M. Ernst wrote:
> Ignoring typeguard, my suggestion still stands, although slightly
> changed: Annotating a dictionary as described earlier in such a way that
> type inference is not required OR in such a way that run-time checkers
> have a chance to work
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:06 PM Finn Mason wrote:
> I love the proposal for dicts, but I agree that this discourages duck
> typing. Could the curly braces notation represent Mapping, not dict
> specifically?
>
> +1 to shortening tuples but not other sequences.
>
>
> --
> Finn Mason
>
That
Just a pointer related to this, typeguard is abandoned.
kttps://github.com/agronholm/typeguard/issues/198
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
Hi Paul, all,
Am 15.10.21 um 18:49 schrieb Paul Moore:
> Mypy correctly rejects this:
> [...]
interesting. Thanks for trying.
> If typeguard doesn't, maybe you need to raise that as a bug against
> that project?
This is kind of contradicting the design of typeguard. It works on a
call level
I love the proposal for dicts, but I agree that this discourages duck
typing. Could the curly braces notation represent Mapping, not dict
specifically?
+1 to shortening tuples but not other sequences.
--
Finn Mason
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 6:46 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at
Mypy correctly rejects this:
❯ type .\t.py
from numbers import Number
from typing import Dict
Data = Dict[str, Number]
def foo(bar: Data):
print(bar)
bar[1.0] = b'hello'
PS 17:48 00:00.008 C:\Work\Scratch\foo
❯ mypy .\t.py
t.py:9: error: Invalid index type "float" for "Dict[str,
Hi all,
disclaimer: I have no idea on potential syntax or if it is applicable to
a wide audience or if there is already a good solution to this. It is
more like a "gap" in the type hint spec that I ran across in a project.
In function/method signatures, I can hint at dictionaries for example as
20 matches
Mail list logo
