Hi all,
I like the idea of the pep and the pep itself. But, from what I've
observed, proposing syntax changes can sometimes create barriers to pep
acceptance, which would be a shame, since I've wanted better typing of
**kwargs forever.
So, I wanted to throw out an alternative idea to requiring a syntax change
(and effectively new operator/dunder method). I don't think I saw this
mentioned; apologies if it has been already.
Anyways, the idea: a future import (or equiv) that changes the meaning of
what a **kwargs type annotation means. e.g.
```
from __future__ import exact_kwargs_annotations
def foo(**kwargs: TypedDict[...]): ...
def bar(**kwargs: dict[str, int]): ...
# or alternatively, a decorator:
from typing import exact_kwargs
@exact_kwargs
def foo(**kwargs: TypedDict): ...
def bar(**kwargs: dict[str, int]): ...
```
(the decorator could also be something trailed in e.g. typing_extensions
for early feedback and backwards compatibility)
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 11:06 AM Franek Magiera
Could you explain a bit more what you mean by "It wouldn't limit **kwargs to whatever's declared in the type"?
That is an interesting idea, but I don't think it is realistic. What should be the type of the kwargs parameter inside the function body in that case? Kwargs are a built in dict object. That means that inside the function body kwargs are used like a dict, so they need to support indexing (like kwargs["name"]) and all the methods that dict supports. TypedDict already takes care of that. _______________________________________________ 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: richardlev@gmail.com