I put the PEP back on our agenda to discuss this.On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:40 PM Guido van Rossum <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Hi Barry,That's fantastic news!Somewhat embarrassingly, on typing-sig we're still discussing one or two final tweaks. In particular, the PEP as accepted forbids a certain construct (passing a tuple of indefinite length to a function using `*args: *Ts`) that after all we may actually want to allow. This would affect static type checkers only, there's no change in the grammar or runtime associated with lifting this restriction. See https://github.com/python/peps/pull/2125I presume the SC is okay with that?--GuidoOn Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:15 PM Barry Warsaw <email@example.com> wrote:Hello Mark, Matthew, Pradeep, Vincent, and Guido,
The Python Steering Council discussed the latest version of PEP 646 (Variadic Generics) at our last meeting, and have unanimously decided to accept the PEP. Congratulations!
We want to specifically mention that we appreciate the way you called out the Python grammar changes required by the typing features you proposed. As we’ve said before, the Steering Council strongly believes that the typing language and the “general” Python programming language should remain aligned, so the implications of syntax change proposed in the PEP for typing needed to be addressed for non-typed Python as well. The PEP explains this change well, and does a good job of justifying the semantics and usefulness of the change for non-type related purposes.
Please feel free to change the PEP status to Accepted, and to merge your changes to Python 3.11 at your convenience.
With our appreciation,
-Barry (on behalf of the Python Steering Council)
Python-Dev mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com
Message archived at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/YBSS4FJ474TJ23XOUSFI5E6N7GAXB3T5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/