[Python-ideas] Structural type checking for PEP 484

Matthias Kramm kramm at google.com
Thu Sep 10 20:20:38 CEST 2015

I like this proposal; given Python's flat nominal type hierarchy, it will 
be useful to have a parallel subtyping mechanism to give things finer 
granularity without having to resort to ABCs.

Are the return types of methods invariant or variant under this proposal?

I.e. if I have

  class A(Protocol):
    def f() -> int: ...


  class B:
    def f() -> bool:
      return True

implicitly implement the protocol?

Also, marking Protocols using subclassing seems confusing and error-prone.
In your examples above, one would think that you could define a new 
protocol using

class SizedAndClosable(Sized):

instead of

class SizedAndClosable(Sized, Protocol):

because Sized is already a protocol.

Maybe the below would be a more intuitive syntax:

  class SizedAndClosable(Sized):

Furthermore, I strongly agree with #7. Typed, but optional, attributes are 
a bad idea.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150910/d085a198/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list