Recent feedback has been integrated. Please see latest PEP text at the
bottom of this email. I think this draft is likely stable enough to
submit to the Steering Council.
Major changes since last revision:
* Integrate feedback RE how typing.TypedDict will (not) support
typing_extensions.Required in certain Python versions.
In particular update the How to Teach This section
* Explain why `Annotated[Required[...], ...]` is allowed.
See the full diff at:
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/2287
--
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
Created: 30-Jan-2021
Python-Version: 3.11
Post-History: 31-Jan-2021, 11-Feb-2021, 20-Feb-2021, 26-Feb-2021,
17-Jan-2022, 28-Jan-2022
Abstract
========
:pep:`589` defines syntax
for declaring a TypedDict with all required keys and syntax for defining
a TypedDict with :pep:`all potentially-missing keys <589#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]
It is an error to use both ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` at the
same time:
::
class Movie(TypedDict):
title: str
year: NotRequired[Required[int]] # ERROR
The :pep:`alternative syntax <589#alternative-syntax>`
for TypedDict also supports
``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``:
::
Movie = TypedDict('Movie', {'name': str, 'year': NotRequired[int]})
Interaction with ``Annotated[]``
-----------------------------------
``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` can be used with ``Annotated[]``,
in any nesting order:
::
class Movie(TypedDict):
title: str
year: NotRequired[Annotated[int, ValueRange(-9999, 9999)]] # ok
::
class Movie(TypedDict):
title: str
year: Annotated[NotRequired[int], ValueRange(-9999, 9999)] # ok
In particular allowing ``Annotated[]`` to be the outermost annotation
for an item allows better interoperability with non-typing uses of
annotations, which may always want ``Annotated[]`` as the outermost
annotation.
[3]_
Interaction with ``get_type_hints()``
-------------------------------------
``typing.get_type_hints(...)`` applied to a TypedDict will by default
strip out any ``Required[]`` or ``NotRequired[]`` type qualifiers,
since these qualifiers are expected to be inconvenient for code
casually introspecting type annotations.
``typing.get_type_hints(..., include_extras=True)`` however
*will* retain ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` type qualifiers,
for advanced code introspecting type annotations that
wishes to preserve *all* annotations in the original source:
::
class Movie(TypedDict):
title: str
year: NotRequired[int]
assert get_type_hints(Movie) == \
{'title': str, 'year': int}
assert get_type_hints(Movie, include_extras=True) == \
{'title': str, 'year': NotRequired[int]}
Interaction with ``get_origin()`` and ``get_args()``
----------------------------------------------------
``typing.get_origin()`` and ``typing.get_args()`` will be updated to
recognize ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``:
::
assert get_origin(Required[int]) is Required
assert get_args(Required[int]) == (int,)
assert get_origin(NotRequired[int]) is NotRequired
assert get_args(NotRequired[int]) == (int,)
Interaction with ``__required_keys__`` and ``__optional_keys__``
----------------------------------------------------------------
An item marked with ``Required[]`` will always appear
in the ``__required_keys__`` for its enclosing TypedDict. Similarly an item
marked with ``NotRequired[]`` will always appear in ``__optional_keys__``.
::
assert Movie.__required_keys__ == frozenset({'title'})
assert Movie.__optional_keys__ == frozenset({'year'})
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]
Okay (required for Python 3.5.3-3.6):
::
class Dog(TypedDict):
name: str
owner: 'NotRequired[str|None]'
No:
::
class Dog(TypedDict):
name: str
# ick; avoid using both Optional and NotRequired
owner: NotRequired[Optional[str]]
Usage in Python <3.11
---------------------
If your code supports Python <3.11 and wishes to use ``Required[]`` or
``NotRequired[]`` then it should use ``typing_extensions.TypedDict`` rather
than ``typing.TypedDict`` because the latter will not understand
``(Not)Required[]``. In particular ``__required_keys__`` and
``__optional_keys__`` on the resulting TypedDict type will not be correct:
Yes (Python 3.11+ only):
::
from typing import NotRequired, TypedDict
class Dog(TypedDict):
name: str
owner: NotRequired[str|None]
Yes (Python <3.11 and 3.11+):
::
from __future__ import annotations # for Python 3.7-3.9
from typing_extensions import NotRequired, TypedDict # for Python
<3.11 with (Not)Required
class Dog(TypedDict):
name: str
owner: NotRequired[str|None]
No (Python <3.11 and 3.11+):
::
from typing import TypedDict # oops: should import from
typing_extensions instead
from typing_extensions import NotRequired
class Movie(TypedDict):
title: str
year: NotRequired[int]
assert Movie.__required_keys__ == frozenset({'title', 'year'}) # yikes
assert Movie.__optional_keys__ == frozenset() # yikes
Reference Implementation
========================
The `mypy <http://www.mypy-lang.org/>`__
`0.930 <https://mypy-lang.blogspot.com/2021/12/mypy-0930-released.html>`__,
`pyright <https://github.com/Microsoft/pyright>`__
`1.1.117
<https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/commit/7ed245b1845173090c6404e49912e8cbfb3417c8>`__,
and `pyanalyze <https://github.com/quora/pyanalyze>`__
`0.4.0
<https://pyanalyze.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changelog.html#version-0-4-0-november-18-2021>`__
type checkers support ``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.
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 None value
This syntax 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.
::
class MyThing(TypedDict):
Optional[opt1]: str # may not exist, but if exists, value is string
opt2: Optional[str] # always exists, but may have None value
This syntax causes ``Optional[]`` to take on different meanings depending
on where it is positioned, which is inconsistent and confusing.
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.
Note when reconsidering introducing this shortform syntax that
``+``, ``-``, and ``~`` already have existing meanings in the Python
typing world: covariant, contravariant, and invariant:
::
>>> from typing import TypeVar
>>> (TypeVar('T', covariant=True), TypeVar('U', contravariant=True),
TypeVar('V'))
(+T, -U, ~V)
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`.
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/4I3GPIWDUKV6GUCHDMORGUGRE4F4SXGR/
.. [2]
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/message/S2VJSVG6WCIWPBZ54BOJPG56KXVSLZK6/
.. [3] https://bugs.python.org/issue46491
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:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/
Member address: gohanpra@gmail.com