Initially, when I wrote this, I had a similar syntax to what you wrote. I like it, I changed it to brackets so we could contain Callable that has multiple arguments or return value as Callables themselves. 

E.g., function that has two Callables as arguments and a Callable return looks like this.. 

f: ((int, str) -> int, (…) -> str) -> (str) -> int

The arguments are clear to me but the callable return confuses me a little (the last two ->’s). However,  the return value does’t have parenthesis, I still could see the consistency (arguments) -> return. But my mind is focusing on the last item, int, instead of the whole (str) -> int for some reason. 

[[int, str -> int], [… -> str] -> [str -> int]] looks uglier but the one before last “->" clearly communicates that the return value is callable.


Regardless of how it’s done, the less we depend on the typing module for annotations, the better I think because it encourages python users to annotate their functions. 

On Nov 28, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:

I'm not so keen on the square brackets you propose. How about we write Callable[[x, y], z] as (x, y) -> z instead? Callable[[], z] would become () -> z, and Callable[..., z] could become (...) -> z, the latter being a bit of an anomaly, but manageable, and better than (*_, **_) -> z which looks like some kind of weird emoji. :-)

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:50 AM Abdulla Al Kathiri <alkathiri.abdulla@gmail.com> wrote:

I don’t know if this has been discussed before. 

Similar to PEP 645 idea of writing "Optional[type]" as “type?”, I propose we write "Callable[[type1, type2, ...], type3]” as “[type1, type2, … -> type3]”. Look at the two examples below and see which one looks better to the eyes:

def func1(f: typing.Callable[[str, int], str], arg1: str, arg2: int) -> str:
return f(arg1, arg2)

def func2(f: [str, int-> str], arg1: str, arg2: int) -> str:
return f(arg1, arg2)

There is less clutter especially if we have nested Callables.

e.g., f: Callable[[str, int], Callable[[int,…], str]] becomes f: [str, int -> [int, ... -> str]]

Callable without zero arguments.. f: Callable[[], str] would become f: [ -> str] 

Equivalent to Callable alone without caring about arguments and the return value would be [… -> typing.Any] or [… -> ] 

Let’s say we have a function that accepts a decorator as an argument. This might not be useful to do, but I want to show case how it would be easier to read. The old way would be:

def decorator(f: Callable[…, int]) -> Callable[…, tuple[int, str]]:
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs) -> tuple[int, str]:
text = “some text”
res = f(*args, **kwargs) 
return res, text 
return wrapper 


def function(decorator: Callable[[Callable[…, int]], Callable[…, tuple[int, str]]], decorated_on: Callable[…, int]) -> Callable[…, tuple[int, str]]:
wrapper = decorator(decorated_on) 
return wrapper 

The new way is as follows: 

def decorator(f: [… -> int]) -> [… -> tuple[int, str]]:
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs) -> tuple[int, str]:
text = “some text”
res = f(*args, **kwargs) 
return rest, text 
return wrapper 

def function(decorator: [ [… -> int] -> [… -> tuple[int, str]]], decorated_on: [… -> int]) -> [… -> tuple[int, str]]:
wrapper = decorator(decorated_on) 
return wrapper 


I saw something similar in Pylance type checker (VSC extension) when you hover over an annotated function that has Callable as an argument or a return value, but they don’t seem to use brackets to mark the beginning and end of the callable, which could be hard to follow mentally (see screenshot below)

<Screen Shot 2020-11-28 at 8.30.09 PM.png>

Personally, I think it would be easier if Pylance wrote the hint like the following:

(function) function: (decorator: [p0:[*args: Any, **kwargs: Any -> int ]] -> [*args: Any, **kwargs: Any -> tuple[int, str]], decorated_on: [*args: Any, **kwargs: Any -> int]) -> [*args: Any, **kwargs: Any -> tuple[int, str]]





_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/LRUXIJXCY5J274MWWNKLARB3R6UOPCUM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/


--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)