[Python-Dev] PEP 526 ready for review: Syntax for Variable and Attribute Annotations (original) (raw)

Ivan Levkivskyi levkivskyi at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 09:43:40 EDT 2016

On 1 September 2016 at 22:37, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote: > There is a convention for function annotations in PEP 484 that a missing > annotation is equivalent to Any, so that I like your first option more.

But Steven wasn't proposing it to mean Any, he was proposing it to mean "type checker should infer". Where I presume the inference should be done based on the assignment in init only.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

On 2 September 2016 at 04:38, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

However, a standalone Ellipsis doesn't currently have a meaning as a type annotation (it's only meaningful when subscripting Tuple and Callable), so a spelling like this might work:

NAME: ... That spelling could then also be used in function definitions to say "infer the return type from the return statements rather than assuming Any"

Interesting idea. This is somehow similar to one of the existing use of Ellipsis: in numpy it infers how many dimensions needs to have the full slice, it is like saying "You know what I mean". So I am +1 on this solution.

-- Ivan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160902/f4cafbef/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list