On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov@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. Wow...

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 of mine. 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 need. Cheers, Ian