data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c3b2/3c3b2a6eec514cc32680936fa4e74059574d2631" alt=""
At this point I feel that the choices are sufficiently clear-cut that we should just forge ahead and settle on a full proposal. And I agree with Jelle that the key point is introducing new syntax for callable types at all. The main point of contention may well be whether the "(...) -> ..." syntax shouldn't be a shorthand for lambda instead. On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 1:08 PM Steven Troxler <steven.troxler@gmail.com> wrote:
Do we think it might be worth starting with the original plan of a PEP that just introduces shorthand syntax (as proposed at the start of this thread)?
That would allow us to defer a lot of discussion until later: - How to add support for named / default / variadic arguments, if at all - Whether it's more valuable to support param specs (e.g. for decorators) than ^ - Pradeep's initial analysis of existing packages suggests this may be the case
I think the main thing we have to decide is whether we're aligned on any future changes being backward-compatible with shorthand, which rules out strict stub-style syntax with implicit Any but leaves all other options on the table. _______________________________________________ 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: guido@python.org
-- --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...>