On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 11:21, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 11:06, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone will likely correct me if this is inaccurate, but my
understanding is that that's exactly what you get if you just don't
give a type hint. The point of type hints is to give more information
to the type checker when it's unable to simply infer from usage and
context.
Hmm, I sort of wondered about that as I wrote it. But in which case,
what's the problem here? My understanding was that people were
concerned that static typing was somehow in conflict with duck typing,
but if the static checkers enforce the inferred duck type on untyped
arguments, then that doesn't seem to be the case. Having said that, I
thought that untyped arguments were treated as if they had a type of
"Any", which means "don't type check".
Looks like it doesn't:
cat .\test.py
def example(f) -> None:
f.close()
import sys
example(12)
example(sys.stdin)
PS 12:00 00:00.009 C:\Work\Scratch\typing
mypy .\test.py
Success: no issues found in 1 source file
What I was after was something that gave an error on the first call,
but not on the second. Compare this:
cat .\test.py
from typing import Protocol
class X(Protocol):
def close(self): ...
def example(f: X) -> None:
f.close()
import sys
example(12)
example(sys.stdin)
PS 12:03 00:00.015 C:\Work\Scratch\typing
mypy .\test.py
test.py:10: error: Argument 1 to "example" has incompatible type
"int"; expected "X"
Found 1 error in 1 file (checked 1 source file)
Paul
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/54C6G2JLYYD6B37J5KVKPCKSQDCGLRKA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/