On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro(a)gmail.com>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov(a)gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> On a separate thread Cory provided an example of what the hints would
>> look like for *part* of one function in the requests public functional API.
> Thanks. That encouraged me to look around for recent posts from Cory.
You're welcome! And yeah. That union that Cory posted was for *one*
parameter if I remember correctly. I won't speak for Cory, but I'm not
against the type hints in 484 but they will be difficult for us as a
project. They'll be marginally less difficult for me in a different project
I also wonder about importing type definitions from other packages. The
Requests-Toolbelt adds a few features that are enhanced versions of what's
already in Requests. I can think of a few type hints that we might create
to represent certain parameters, but I don't want to have to copy those for
the features in the Requests-Toolbelt. I would expect this to "Just Work",
but I wonder if anyone else has considered the possibility of this being a