> Even less, actually.
> The PEP doesn't make a very clear distinction between invalid Python
> syntax vs. invalid type annotation, so I wanted to check if we're on the
> same page here: the newly valid syntax will be subject to PEP 387.
> We clearly are on the same page, and I don't think you need to update
> the PEP.

Ok, fair enough.

> When I asked my curious question, I thought I misread a piece of text,
> not that it's a detail that went unnoticed, and could delay the PEP.
> I can't speak for the whole SC, but on the Monday meeting I'll suggest
> accepting the PEP with a note that
> - index assignment is also affected, and
> - the details around multiple unpackings in a type expression aren't
> specified precisely. This gives individual type checkers some leeway,
> but can be tightened in future PEPs.

Cool. Thanks, Petr!