On 1/18/21 9:19 AM, Eric Traut wrote:
 > I don't think it's feasible to deprecate `Optional[x]`. It's too
ubiquitous. However, I predict that it its use will fade over time in
favor of `x | None` as specified in [PEP
604](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0604/).

On 1/18/21 12:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
 > The syntax x? is quite controversial and unlikely to be accepted anytime
 > soon (and requires parser changes so invites much more scrutiny).

Points taken. I'll restate my last argument using this new information:

Let's say we use the form Required[...] only on total=False TypedDict
definitions. You could encounter code like:

     class MyTypedDict(TypedDict, total=False):
         foo: Required[str]
         bar: Required[int|None]
         baz: float|None
         qed: bool

This code seems fairly straightforward to me. So long as we discourage
in documentation the use of Optional[...] in the presence of
Required[...] -- perhaps explicitly in favor of the `T|None` form -- it
looks to me like Required[...] would be readable even in a more complex
(real-world) case like this definition shows.

Any major objections to the Required[...] syntax (in combination with
total=False) being the solution to defining the optionality/requiredness
of individual fields on TypedDicts? I'm feeling like the discussion and
decisions so far are ripe to make into an actual PEP.

--
David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA
Contributor to TypedDict support for mypy