To be clear, you propose that we write (int, P) -> str instead of (int, **P) -> str, with the same semantics (triggered by P being a ParamSpec), right?

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Eric Traut <eric@traut.com> wrote:
I'm fine with removing `async` from the spec. I think it's a reasonable simplification and eliminates some of the special-case parsing, as mentioned in the python-dev thread.

That same thread also mentions the `**` syntax for ParamSpecs. I'm OK eliminating this too. As someone mentioned, it requires special-case parsing, is not needed for correct semantic analysis, and (IMO) adds relatively little in the way of readability. I'm also OK leaving it in if others feel strongly about it and it doesn't become an obstacle for PEP 677 ratification.

 -Eric
_______________________________________________
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?)