On 21/05/15 16:01, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Hi Mark,
We're down to the last few items here. I'm CC'ing python-dev so folks
can see how close we are. I'll answer point by point.
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org
<mailto:m...@hotpy.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The PEP itself is looking fairly good.
I hope you'll accept it at least provisionally so we can iterate over
the finer points while a prototype of typing.py in in beta 1.
However, I don't think that typing.py is ready yet, for a number of
reasons:
1.
As I've said before, there needs to be a distinction between classes
and types.
They is no need for Any, Generic, Generic's subtypes, or Union to
subclass builtins.type.
I strongly disagree. They can appear in many positions where real
classes are acceptable, in particular annotations can have classes (e.g.
int) or types (e.g. Union[int, str]).
Why does this mean that they have to be classes? Annotations can be any
object.
It might to help to think, not in terms of types being classes, but
classes being shorthand for the nominal type for that class (from the
point of view of the checker and type geeks)
So when the checker sees 'int' it treats it as Type(int).
Subtyping is distinct from subclassing;
Type(int) <: Union[Type(int), Type(str)]
has no parallel in subclassing.
There is no class that corresponds to a Union, Any or a Generic.
In order to support the
class C(ParameterType[T]): pass
syntax, parametric types do indeed need to be classes, but Python has
multiple inheritance, so thats not a problem:
class ParameterType(type, Type): ...
Otherwise typing.Types shouldn't be builtin.types and vice versa.
I think a lot of this issues on the tracker would not have been issues
had the distinction been more clearly enforced.
Playing around with typing.py, it has also become clear to me that it
is also important to distinguish type constructors from types.
What do I mean by a type constructor?
A type constructor makes types.
"List" is an example of a type constructor. It constructs types such
as List[T] and List[int].
Saying that something is a List (as opposed to a list) should be
rejected.
The PEP actually says that plain List (etc.) is equivalent to List[Any].
(Well, at least that's the intention; it's implied by the section about
the equivalence between Node() and Node[Any]().
Perhaps we should change that. Using 'List', rather than 'list' or
'List[Any]' suggests an error, or misunderstanding, to me.
Is there a use case where 'List' is needed, and 'list' will not suffice?
I'm assuming that the type checker knows that 'list' is a MutableSequence.
2.
Usability of typing as it stands:
Let's try to make a class that implements a mutable mapping.
>>> import typing as tp
#Make some variables.
>>> T = tp.TypeVar('T')
>>> K = tp.TypeVar('K')
>>> V = tp.TypeVar('V')
#Then make our class:
>>> class MM(tp.MutableMapping): pass
...
#Oh that worked, but it shouldn't. MutableMapping is a type constructor.
It means MutableMapping[Any].
#Let's make one
>>> MM()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/home/mark/repositories/typehinting/prototyping/typing.py",
line 1095, in __new__
if _gorg(c) is Generic:
File "/home/mark/repositories/typehinting/prototyping/typing.py",
line 887, in _gorg
while a.__origin__ is not None:
AttributeError: type object 'Sized' has no attribute '__origin__'
# ???
Sorry, that's a bug I introduced in literally the last change to
typing.py. I will fix it. The expected behavior is
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class MM with abstract methods __len__
#Well let's try using type variables.
class MM2(tp.MutableMapping[K, V]): pass
...
>>> MM2()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/home/mark/repositories/typehinting/prototyping/typing.py",
line 1095, in __new__
if _gorg(c) is Generic:
File "/home/mark/repositories/typehinting/prototyping/typing.py",
line 887, in _gorg
while a.__origin__ is not None:
AttributeError: type object 'Sized' has no attribute '__origin__'
Ditto, and sorry.
No need to apologise, I'm just a bit worried about how easy it was for
me to expose this sort of bug.
At this point, we have to resort to using 'Dict', which forces us to
subclass 'dict' which may not be what we want as it may cause
metaclass conflicts.
3.
Memory consumption is also a worry. There is no caching, which means
every time I use "List[int]" as an annotation, a new class object is
created. Each class may only be a few KB, but collectively this
could easily add up to several MBs.
This should be easy to fix.
I can work on this after the beta-1 release. Until then, type aliases
can be used to avoid redundant type creation (and often they are clearer
anyway :-).
Sure.
4.
PY2, etc. really need to go.
Assuming that this code type checks OK:
if typing.PY2:
type_safe_under_py2_only()
else:
type_safe_under_py3_only()
Is the checker supposed to pass this:
if sys.hexversion < 0x03000000:
type_safe_under_py2_only()
else:
type_safe_under_py3_only()
If it should pass, then why have PY2, etc. at all.
If it should fail, well that is just stupid and annoying.
Pylint already understands version checks, as does our (Semmle's)
checker. I suspect most IDEs do as well.
I have to negotiate this with Jukka but I think he'll agree.
5.
Removing isinstance() support:
As I said before, this is the job of a checker not typing.py.
It also introduces some strange situations:
D = tp.Dict[str,int]
d = {}
assert isinstance(d, D)
d["x"] = None
assert isinstance(d, D)
In the above case the first check passes, and the second fails.
But d is either of type D or it isn't. It can't be both, as types
are static properties of programs, unlike classes.
Well, isinstance() is a dynamic function. The type checker has no
authority over its behavior beyond its signature.
And it's broken anyway:
>>> D = tp.Dict[str,'D']
>>> d = {"x": {}}
>>> isinstance(d, D)
False
That's because _ForwardRef doesn't implement __instancheck__ or
__subclasscheck__. It's easily fixed.
Realistically, I don't see typing.py being ready in time for 3.5.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
Cheers,
Mark.
P.S.
I am worried by the lack of formal specification. It all seems a bit
hand-waving. A formal spec reduces the likelihood of some unforeseen
corner case being a permanent wart.
Formal specs are not my cup of tea. :-( (I'm not proud of this, but it
just is a fact -- see how terrible a job I've done of the Python
reference manual.) The best I could come up with is PEP 483.
Take the recursive type above. There is no mention of recursive
types in the PEP and they are clearly possible. Are they allowed?
They should be allowed. I imagine you could create one for which a naive
isinstance() imeplementation ends up in an infinite loop. That can be
fixed too (we fixed this for printing self-referential lists and dicts).
I'm guessing that Jukka's thesis should cover a lot of this.
Has it been published yet?
Hopefully Jukka can answer that. :-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido <http://python.org/~guido>)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
