(original) (raw)
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2017 at 08:51, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
\> On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 11:11 Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net> wrote:
>> It might be nice to have a less verbose syntax for Optional, but that
\>> can be a separate discussion.
\>
\> You should be able to do that today with \`from typing import Optional as Eh\`
\> or whatever your preferred optional/maybe name is. :)
While "from typing import Optional as Opt" can indeed help, perhaps
PEP 505 should be updated to discuss this point in addition to the
current proposals for None-aware binary operators?
If it included a ? prefix operator as a shorthand for
"typing.Optional\[\]", that would shorten affected declarations
back to:
def handle\_employee(e: ?Employee = None) -> None: ...
I really don't want to go there. And this idea should definitely not be a condition for removing the existing PEP 484 feature. Whatever gets done syntax-wise won't affect anyone who needs any kind of backward compatibility anyways, and that's very important for practical adoption of PEP 484.