Allow writing optional types as ?int
Hey, python 3.9 introduced the | operator for union types. it would be nice to have something like that for optional types. maybe like name: ? int or name: int ? best regards Sebastian Lübke
There's already a proposal. See https://gist.github.com/MaggieMoss/c848cb3a581979f445d075c15629c950 and https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/SWAY6V7WZ... On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:50 AM Sebastian Noel Lübke <sebastian@luebke.io> wrote:
-- Sebastian Kreft
On 10/7/2020 10:29 AM, Sebastian Kreft wrote:
I think this would conflict with https://bugs.python.org/issue41967, where Pablo suggests moving the annotations into the parser. Annotations would then need to be valid expressions, if I'm reading it correctly. It's probably possible to work around this, but I'm not sure what it would take. Eric
Could you explain how Maggie's proposal (writing 'int?') would conflict with Pablo's proposal? IIUC Maggie's proposal would require 'int?' to become a valid expression. (As I expressed in the typing-sig thread, I'm lukewarm about 'int?' because we will have 'int | None'. The same reasoning applies to '?int' FWIW.) On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:42 AM Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>
On 10/7/2020 1:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, Maggie's proposal says that int? would be a typing-specific syntax: "Should PEP 505 be approved in the future, it would not interfere with the typing specific |?| proposed in this PEP." My concern was just that Pablo's proposal (as I understand it) would mean there are no typing-specific expressions. Eric
There's already a proposal. See https://gist.github.com/MaggieMoss/c848cb3a581979f445d075c15629c950 and https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/SWAY6V7WZ... On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:50 AM Sebastian Noel Lübke <sebastian@luebke.io> wrote:
-- Sebastian Kreft
On 10/7/2020 10:29 AM, Sebastian Kreft wrote:
I think this would conflict with https://bugs.python.org/issue41967, where Pablo suggests moving the annotations into the parser. Annotations would then need to be valid expressions, if I'm reading it correctly. It's probably possible to work around this, but I'm not sure what it would take. Eric
Could you explain how Maggie's proposal (writing 'int?') would conflict with Pablo's proposal? IIUC Maggie's proposal would require 'int?' to become a valid expression. (As I expressed in the typing-sig thread, I'm lukewarm about 'int?' because we will have 'int | None'. The same reasoning applies to '?int' FWIW.) On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:42 AM Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>
On 10/7/2020 1:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, Maggie's proposal says that int? would be a typing-specific syntax: "Should PEP 505 be approved in the future, it would not interfere with the typing specific |?| proposed in this PEP." My concern was just that Pablo's proposal (as I understand it) would mean there are no typing-specific expressions. Eric
participants (4)
-
Eric V. Smith -
Guido van Rossum -
Sebastian Kreft -
Sebastian Noel Lübke