Mailman 3 August 2021 - Typing-sig

Any way to express that a dict is expected to have a key(s) but don't care about other keys?
by Brett Cannon 21 Apr '22

21 Apr '22

Looking at TypedDict it seems that it does not like the idea of superfluous keys existing in a dict. In my case I have a REST call returning JSON for an error and all I'm guaranteed is to get an "error" key. But there may be extra keys that provide more details about the specific error. Unfortunately I don't know the exhaustive list of keys so I can't use a TypedDict with `totality == False` to try to be complete. I can't think of any way to somehow say "require/expect this one key, but other keys are OK". Am I missing anything that would let me do this?

13 31

PEP 655: Marking individual TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing
by David Foster 23 Feb '22

23 Feb '22

The new syntax Required[...] and NotRequired[...] for marking individual keys of a TypedDict has now been formally proposed as a draft PEP. Please see the latest text at the bottom of this email, or online at: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0655/ Comments welcome. :) Meanwhile I'll proceed to implement this syntax in mypy. -- David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA Contributor to TypedDict support for mypy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PEP: 655 Title: Marking individual TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing Author: David Foster <david at dafoster.net> Sponsor: Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> Discussions-To: typing-sig at python.org Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Requires: 604 Created: 30-Jan-2021 Python-Version: 3.10 Post-History: 31-Jan-2021, 11-Feb-2021, 20-Feb-2021, 26-Feb-2021 Abstract ======== `PEP 589 <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0589/>`__ defines syntax for declaring a TypedDict with all required keys and syntax for defining a TypedDict with `all potentially-missing keys <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0589/#totality>`__ however it does not provide any syntax to declare some keys as required and others as potentially-missing. This PEP introduces two new syntaxes: ``Required[...]`` which can be used on individual items of a TypedDict to mark them as required, and ``NotRequired[...]`` which can be used on individual items to mark them as potentially-missing. Motivation ========== It is not uncommon to want to define a TypedDict with some keys that are required and others that are potentially-missing. Currently the only way to define such a TypedDict is to declare one TypedDict with one value for ``total`` and then inherit it from another TypedDict with a different value for ``total``: :: class _MovieBase(TypedDict): # implicitly total=True title: str class Movie(_MovieBase, total=False): year: int Having to declare two different TypedDict types for this purpose is cumbersome. Rationale ========= One might think it unusual to propose syntax that prioritizes marking *required* keys rather than syntax for *potentially-missing* keys, as is customary in other languages like TypeScript: :: interface Movie { title: string; year?: number; // ? marks potentially-missing keys } The difficulty is that the best word for marking a potentially-missing key, ``Optional[...]``, is already used in Python for a completely different purpose: marking values that could be either of a particular type or ``None``. In particular the following does not work: :: class Movie(TypedDict): ... year: Optional[int] # means int|None, not potentially-missing! Attempting to use any synonym of “optional” to mark potentially-missing keys (like ``Missing[...]``) would be too similar to ``Optional[...]`` and be easy to confuse with it. Thus it was decided to focus on positive-form phrasing for required keys instead, which is straightforward to spell as ``Required[...]``. Nevertheless it is common for folks wanting to extend a regular (``total=True``) TypedDict to only want to add a small number of potentially-missing keys, which necessitates a way to mark keys that are *not* required and potentially-missing, and so we also allow the ``NotRequired[...]`` form for that case. Specification ============= The ``typing.Required`` type qualifier is used to indicate that a variable declared in a TypedDict definition is a required key: :: class Movie(TypedDict, total=False): title: Required[str] year: int Additionally the ``typing.NotRequired`` type qualifier is used to indicate that a variable declared in a TypedDict definition is a potentially-missing key: :: class Movie(TypedDict): # implicitly total=True title: str year: NotRequired[int] It is an error to use ``Required[...]`` or ``NotRequired[...]`` in any location that is not an item of a TypedDict. It is valid to use ``Required[...]`` and ``NotRequired[...]`` even for items where it is redundant, to enable additional explicitness if desired: :: class Movie(TypedDict): title: Required[str] # redundant year: NotRequired[int] Backwards Compatibility ======================= No backward incompatible changes are made by this PEP. How to Teach This ================= To define a TypedDict where most keys are required and some are potentially-missing, define a single TypedDict as normal and mark those few keys that are potentially-missing with ``NotRequired[...]``. To define a TypedDict where most keys are potentially-missing and a few are required, define a ``total=False`` TypedDict and mark those few keys that are required with ``Required[...]``. If some items accept ``None`` in addition to a regular value, it is recommended that the ``TYPE|None`` syntax be preferred over ``Optional[TYPE]`` for marking such item values, to avoid using ``Required[...]`` or ``NotRequired[...]`` alongside ``Optional[...]`` within the same TypedDict definition: Yes: :: from __future__ import annotations # for Python 3.7-3.9 class Dog(TypedDict): name: str owner: NotRequired[str|None] Avoid (unless Python 3.5-3.6): :: class Dog(TypedDict): name: str # ick; avoid using both Optional and NotRequired owner: NotRequired[Optional[str]] Reference Implementation ======================== The goal is to be able to make the following statement: The `mypy <http://www.mypy-lang.org/>`__ type checker supports ``Required`` and ``NotRequired``. A reference implementation of the runtime component is provided in the `typing_extensions <https://github.com/python/typing/tree/master/typing_extensions>`__ module. The mypy implementation is currently still being worked on. Rejected Ideas ============== Special syntax around the *key* of a TypedDict item --------------------------------------------------- :: class MyThing(TypedDict): opt1?: str # may not exist, but if exists, value is string opt2: Optional[str] # always exists, but may have null value or: :: class MyThing(TypedDict): Optional[opt1]: str # may not exist, but if exists, value is string opt2: Optional[str] # always exists, but may have null value These syntaxes would require Python grammar changes and it is not believed that marking TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing would meet the high bar required to make such grammar changes. Also, “let’s just not put funny syntax before the colon.” [1]_ Marking required or potentially-missing keys with an operator ------------------------------------------------------------- We could use unary ``+`` as shorthand to mark a required key, unary ``-`` to mark a potentially-missing key, or unary ``~`` to mark a key with opposite-of-normal totality: :: class MyThing(TypedDict, total=False): req1: +int # + means a required key, or Required[...] opt1: str req2: +float class MyThing(TypedDict): req1: int opt1: -str # - means a potentially-missing key, or NotRequired[...] req2: float class MyThing(TypedDict): req1: int opt1: ~str # ~ means a opposite-of-normal-totality key req2: float Such operators could be implemented on ``type`` via the ``__pos__``, ``__neg__`` and ``__invert__`` special methods without modifying the grammar. It was decided that it would be prudent to introduce longform syntax (i.e. ``Required[...]`` and ``NotRequired[...]``) before introducing any shortform syntax. Future PEPs may reconsider introducing this or other shortform syntax options. Marking absence of a value with a special constant -------------------------------------------------- We could introduce a new type-level constant which signals the absence of a value when used as a union member, similar to JavaScript’s ``undefined`` type, perhaps called ``Missing``: :: class MyThing(TypedDict): req1: int opt1: str|Missing req2: float Such a ``Missing`` constant could also be used for other scenarios such as the type of a variable which is only conditionally defined: :: class MyClass: attr: int|Missing def __init__(self, set_attr: bool) -> None: if set_attr: self.attr = 10 :: def foo(set_attr: bool) -> None: if set_attr: attr = 10 reveal_type(attr) # int|Missing Misalignment with how unions apply to values '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' However this use of ``...|Missing``, equivalent to ``Union[..., Missing]``, doesn’t align well with what a union normally means: ``Union[...]`` always describes the type of a *value* that is present. By contrast missingness or non-totality is a property of a *variable* instead. Current precedent for marking properties of a variable include ``Final[...]`` and ``ClassVar[...]``, which the proposal for ``Required[...]`` is aligned with. Misalignment with how unions are subdivided ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Furthermore the use of ``Union[..., Missing]`` doesn’t align with the usual ways that union values are broken down: Normally you can eliminate components of a union type using ``isinstance`` checks: :: class Packet: data: Union[str, bytes] def send_data(packet: Packet) -> None: if isinstance(packet.data, str): reveal_type(packet.data) # str packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8') else: reveal_type(packet.data) # bytes packet_bytes = packet.data socket.send(packet_bytes) However if we were to allow ``Union[..., Missing]`` you’d either have to eliminate the ``Missing`` case with ``hasattr`` for object attributes: :: class Packet: data: Union[str, Missing] def send_data(packet: Packet) -> None: if hasattr(packet, 'data'): reveal_type(packet.data) # str packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8') else: reveal_type(packet.data) # Missing? error? packet_bytes = b'' socket.send(packet_bytes) or a check against ``locals()`` for local variables: :: def send_data(packet_data: Optional[str]) -> None: packet_bytes: Union[str, Missing] if packet_data is not None: packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8') if 'packet_bytes' in locals(): reveal_type(packet_bytes) # bytes socket.send(packet_bytes) else: reveal_type(packet_bytes) # Missing? error? or a check via other means, such as against ``globals()`` for global variables: :: warning: Union[str, Missing] import sys if sys.version_info < (3, 6): warning = 'Your version of Python is unsupported!' if 'warning' in globals(): reveal_type(warning) # str print(warning) else: reveal_type(warning) # Missing? error? Weird and inconsistent. ``Missing`` is not really a value at all; it’s an absence of definition and such an absence should be treated specially. Difficult to implement '''''''''''''''''''''' Eric Traut from the Pyright type checker team has stated that implementing a ``Union[..., Missing]``-style syntax would be difficult. [2]_ Introduces a second null-like value into Python ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Defining a new ``Missing`` type-level constant would be very close to introducing a new ``Missing`` value-level constant at runtime, creating a second null-like runtime value in addition to ``None``. Having two different null-like constants in Python (``None`` and ``Missing``) would be confusing. Many newcomers to JavaScript already have difficulty distinguishing between its analogous constants ``null`` and ``undefined``. Replace Optional with Nullable. Repurpose Optional to mean “optional item”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``Optional[...]`` is too ubiquitous to deprecate. Although use of it *may* fade over time in favor of the ``T|None`` syntax specified by `PEP 604 <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0604/>`__. Change Optional to mean “optional item” in certain contexts instead of “nullable” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the use of a special flag on a TypedDict definition to alter the interpretation of ``Optional`` inside the TypedDict to mean “optional item” rather than its usual meaning of “nullable”: :: class MyThing(TypedDict, optional_as_missing=True): req1: int opt1: Optional[str] or: :: class MyThing(TypedDict, optional_as_nullable=False): req1: int opt1: Optional[str] This would add more confusion for users because it would mean that in *some* contexts the meaning of ``Optional[...]`` is different than in other contexts, and it would be easy to overlook the flag. Various synonyms for “potentially-missing item” ----------------------------------------------- - Omittable – too easy to confuse with optional - OptionalItem, OptionalKey – two words; too easy to confuse with optional - MayExist, MissingOk – two words - Droppable – too similar to Rust’s ``Drop``, which means something different - Potential – too vague - Open – sounds like applies to an entire structure rather then to an item - Excludable - Checked References ========== .. [1] https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/message/4I3GPIW… .. [2] https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/message/S2VJSVG… Copyright ========= This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive. .. Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 coding: utf-8 End: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

10 31

Thoughts on a typing.Self?
by gobot1234yt＠gmail.com 02 Nov '21

02 Nov '21

I would like to draft a PEP for a typing.Self class which would perform similarly to rust's Self keyword in function annotations. Examples ```python from typing import TypeVar F = TypeVar("F", bound="Foo") class Foo: def parse(self: F, data: bytes) -> F: ... return self ``` vs ```python from typing import Self class Foo: def parse(self, data: bytes) -> Self: ... return self ``` Another example of where this could be useful is classmethods: ```python class Foo: @classmethod def bar(cls: type[F], *args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> F: return cls() ``` vs ```python class Foo: @classmethod def bar(cls, *args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> Self: return cls() ``` Implementation wise it would be a copy of NoReturn, i.e. not subscriptable, a _SpecialForm and should only be valid as a return type. I haven't seen any discussion of the idea on the mailing list, so I wanted to run it by everyone. Thanks, James.

12 27

Meetup to discuss Callable Syntax
by S Pradeep Kumar 08 Oct '21

08 Oct '21

Hello all, User-friendly Callable syntax is something we all want to see. However, there has been no real movement on the discussion in the last one month. People have had differing opinions based on design principles, stats, and personal experience. This has led to half a dozen proposals with some subtle and not-so-subtle differences [1]. And Guido pointed out that we want to settle on a full proposal instead of going for a partial PEP now and settling on the remaining details in a later PEP. How about we meet up over a zoom call and discuss some of the key concerns? Things proceed noticeably faster when people from the typing community are able to get in the same (virtual) room (I saw that with PEP 646 and the typing summit). We don't have to reach a consensus in the first meeting itself. It's more a way to break the deadlock and make progress. Date: 10 am San Francisco time (6 pm UK time), Monday, September 13, 2021. Date is flexible. Duration: 1 hour. If there is enough interest, I can set up the video call and share the link and agenda. If you're interested in presenting pros and cons for your favorite proposal, reply to this mail. [1]: Document containing the various proposals and use cases: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11VkNk9N8whxS1SrBv2BNN1Csl5yeTlgG7WyLrCB… -- S Pradeep Kumar

9 33

How to pass a reference to a protocol class
by Andreas Stenius 27 Aug '21

27 Aug '21

Hi, I’m in a position, where I’d like to be able to pass a reference to a Protocol Class, however, I can’t find a way to describe that variable with the current type system, as Type[ProtocolClass] means a class implementing said protocol, where I want the protocol itself, while ProtocolClass means an instance of a class implementing the protocol. So I haven’t figured out if PEP 544 specifies a type that describes the Protocol class itself, rather than just its compatible implementations. I tried to file this as a mypy bug <https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/10988>, but no response yet, and alas, figure it may even be overlooked by the PEP in question. Anyway, I’d very much appreciate a few more eyes and input on this matter. Thank you, Cheers This is a cross post from https://discuss.python.org/t/how-to-pass-a-reference-to-a-protocol-class/10… Reported MyPy Issue: https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/10988

1 1

NamedArg?
by Paul Bryan 20 Aug '21

20 Aug '21

Is anything like mypy's `NamedArg` coming to the Python standard library? Meanwhile, if I want to include named arguments in a Callable type, is the right approach to use something like `Callable[..., int]`?

2 2

Optional protocol fields
by Sebastian Rittau 19 Aug '21

19 Aug '21

This was previously briefly discussed in https://github.com/python/typing/issues/601. Occasionally it's useful if it was possible to mark protocol fields as optional. While the existence of such a field is not guaranteed, if it exists, it follows the described protocol. This is especially useful for I/O protocols, where implementations often check for the existence of a particular method, before using it. One prominent example is the WSGI spec, where the iterable returned by an application can optionally have a close() method. My suggestion is to add an @optional decorator to typing to be used like this: from typing import Protocol, optional class MyProto(Protocol): def write(self, __b: bytes) -> Any: ... @optional def close(self) -> Any: ... On the Python side, this is fairly trivial to implement: @optional would just return the passed in function, possible adding an attribute for runtime inspection: def optional(f: _F) -> _F: f.__optional__ = True return f Full support for type checkers is more complicated, as hasattr() support would be required to check implementations. A quick & dirty way for type checkers to support the status quo is to ignore @optional fields. - Sebastian

2 2

Discussion forum for typing Q&A and review requests
by Sebastian Rittau 19 Aug '21

19 Aug '21

Typing is hard. And constantly evolving. I've seen questions about correct typing in many different forums and bug trackers, and often the same questions get repeatedly asked. This is why we set up a central forum to help users with typing at https://github.com/python/typing/discussions. Currently, it's a bit bare bones, but we have two categories for general Q&A and for asking for reviews. If users have questions about typing, please feel free to direct them there or to Gitter (https://gitter.im/python/typing). If you maintain a typing-related package or typing-related documentation, we would be happy if you could add a link to the discussions forum to your documentation. Contributors to the forum and suggestions on how to improve it are most welcome. That forum is intended as a user help forum. Discussions about new features, improvements, and implementation should continue to go to this list or to the appropriate issue trackers. - Sebastian

1 0

Support for sealed classes
by Adrian Freund 19 Aug '21

19 Aug '21

Hello typing-sig, I wanted to suggest adding support for sealed classes to the python type system. What are sealed classes? Sealed classes are classes of which all subclasses are known statically. This is usually accomplished by requiring all subclasses to be created in the same file/module as the parent class. What languages support sealed classes? Sealed classes are supported by C#, Kotlin and starting with Java 15 even by Java. What can sealed classes be used for? Sealed classes are useful for checking the exhaustiveness of if/else towers and (python 3.10) match statements for example when working with abstract syntax trees. Take a look at this example: ``` class Node(ABC): ... class Value(Node): ... class BinOp(Node): ... class UnOp(Node): ... n: Node match n: case Value(v): ... case BinOp(n1, op, n2): ... case UnOp(op, n1): ... # Can we statically check if all cases are handled? ``` Sealed classes in python: My suggestion would be to add a new class "Sealed" to typing and typing_extensions that can be inherited from: class Node(Sealed): ... Type checkers should make sure that no subclasses of Node are created in modules other than the module Node was created in and should treat sealed classes as abstract classes. Additionally they can keep track of all the subclasses of Node do implement exhaustiveness checking. The runtime implementation of sealed could also prevent non-typechecked code from creating additional subclasses: ``` class Sealed(ABC): def __init_subclass__(cls): for c in cls.__mro__: if Sealed in c.__bases__ and c.__module__ != cls.__module__: raise RuntimeError('Sealed class can\'t be subclassed from another module. Sealed in module "{}".'.format(c.__module__)) ``` Final example: a.py: ``` from typing import Sealed class Base(Sealed): pass class A(Base): pass class B(A): pass ``` b.py: ``` from a import Base, A class C(Base): # raises an exception pass class D(A): # also raises an exception pass ``` Adrian Freund

5 7

Discussion on Compose type operator
by Alfonso L. Castaño 18 Aug '21

18 Aug '21

Hi, Context: during the typing meeting of this week Brandon presented the idea of introducing a Compose type operator, which takes a variadic of callables, checks that they compose, and returns the type of the composed function. To follow-up on the discussion about Compose: We were wondering what can be achieved nowadays without custom operators, just relying on overload. Let's think about the example of a compose function, we could do the following right? from typing import Callable as Call # Overloads def compose(f1: Call[A,B]) -> Call[A,B] def compose(f1: Call[A,B], f2: Call[B,C]) -> Call[A,C] def compose(f1: Call[A,B], f2: Call[B,C], f3: Call[C,D]) -> Call[A,D] ... What is less obvious is how would we type a class like torch.nn.Sequential, which would look like this with the Compose operator: class Sequential(Generic[A,*Ts]): def __init__(self, fs: *Ts) def __call__(self, in: A) -> Compose[*Ts] Here we can't overload the class definition, so what can be done? We had a couple of ideas but they would not really work for a variable number of arguments because we can't overload. An example of those approaches would be: class Sequential(Generic[A,B,C]): def __init__(self, f1: Callable[A,B], f2: Callable[B,C]): ... def __call__(self, in: A) -> C: .... Best, Alfonso.

4 5

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

Typing-sig August 2021