On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 01:13, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 16:48 Christopher Barker <python...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> And as I noted in my last post — many folks have not been paying attention >> to the typing discussions because they didn’t realize it concerned them. > > It seems a little disingenuous to claim discussions about annotations don’t > concern you when you’re actively using them (for typing, no less, in the case > of pydantic). And I am sure a project as popular (by their own description) > as pydantic will find a way forward if PEP 649 is rejected, despite > overdramatized claims.
It looks to me like pydantic were well aware that this affected them and have been working over time to try and support this. They probably also had their eye on PEP 649 or hoped that something else would come along to fix this but they can now see the crunch point approaching. As Chris says though other libraries/developers have been using annotations for some time and might not have realised that typing considerations could undermine their other uses for annotations since annotations predate typing and typing is an optional feature. > That said, I agree it is better that this came up before the feature freeze > than after the release. And I am willing to accept that the hypothetical > future where annotations are not always syntactically expressions (which did > not even exist before this week) is less important than backwards > compatibility. Would it be problematic to postpone making __future__.annotations the default? Oscar _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VCFHDQFOBQXZDKKPSTU5FNKP2AZIJMX2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
