(original) (raw)
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 November 2017 at 01:48, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
\> I don't mind the long name. Of all the options so far I really only like
\> 'string\_annotations' so let's go with that.
+1 from me.
I'd like to reverse my stance on this. We had \`from \_\_future\_\_ import division\` for many years in Python 2, and nobody argued that it implied that Python 2 doesn't have division -- it just meant to import the future \*version\* of division. So I think the original idea, \`from \_\_future\_\_ import annotations\` is fine. I don't expect there will be \*other\* things related to annotations that we'll be importing from the future.