data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4139c/4139cd55a519bbbc5518a98d3ab394bc539912b9" alt=""
El lun, 28 jun 2021 a las 13:08, Steven Troxler (<steven.troxler@gmail.com>) escribió:
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)?
I'm not sure. I feel like the biggest hurdle is going to be convincing the SC to add a new piece of syntax that is only useful for typing. In my view, either approach has risks. If we only add the shorthand syntax, perhaps the feature isn't compelling enough because it doesn't unlock new capabilities. If we do add the full syntax, there is more opportunity for bikeshedding to derail the discussion.
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: jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com