[Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526 (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 22:21:42 EDT 2016

On 5 September 2016 at 04:40, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 September 2016 at 19:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: [...]

Similarly, it would be reasonable to say that these three snippets should all be equivalent from a typechecking perspective: x = None # type: Optional[T] x: Optional[T] = None x: Optional[T] x = None Nice idea, explicit is better than implicit. How is it going to help that these are equivalent within one checker, if the meaning may differ across checkers?

For typechecker developers, it provides absolute clarity that the semantics of the new annotations should match the behaviour of existing type comments when there's an initialiser present, or of a parameter annotation when there's no initialiser present.

For folks following along without necessarily keeping up with all the nuances, it makes it more explicit what Guido means when he says "PEP 526 does not make a stand on the behavior of type checkers (other than deferring to PEP 484)."

For example, the formulation of the divergent initialisation case where I think the preferred semantics are already implied by PEP 484 can be looked at this way:

x = None # type: Optional[List[T]]
if arg is not None:
    x = list(arg)
    if other_arg is not None:
        x.extend(arg)

It would be a strange typechecker indeed that handled that case differently from the new spellings made possible by PEP 526:

x: Optional[List[T]] = None
if arg is not None:
    x = list(arg)
    if other_arg is not None:
        x.extend(arg)

x: Optional[List[T]]
if arg is None:
    x = None
else:
    x = list(arg)
    if other_arg is not None:
        x.extend(arg)

x: Optional[List[T]]
if arg is not None:
    x = list(arg)
    if other_arg is not None:
        x.extend(arg)
else:
    x = None

Or from the semantics of PEP 484 parameter annotations:

def my_func(arg:Optional[List[T]], other_arg=None):
    # other_arg is implicitly Optional[Any]
    if arg is not None and other_arg is not None:
        # Here, "arg" can be assumed to be List[T]
        # while "other_arg" is Any
        arg.extend(other_arg)

A self-consistent typechecker will either allow all of the above, or prohibit all of the above, while a typechecker that isn't self-consistent would be incredibly hard to use.

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list