On 4 November 2017 at 03:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> If I understand correctly, a lot of the complexity in the current
> typing.py implementation is there to make isinstance and issubclass do
> something "useful" at runtime, and to allow generics to be used as
> base classes.
>
> If it wasn't for th
On 4 November 2017 at 00:40, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> IMO the inability of referencing class-level definitions from annotations on
> methods pretty much kills this idea.
If we decided we wanted to make it work, I think the key runtime
building block we would need is a new kind of cell reference:
Hello,
would it be possible to guarantee that dict literals are ordered in v3.7?
The issue is well-known and the workarounds are tedious, example:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-December/037423.html
If the feature is guaranteed now, people can rely on it around v3.9.
I'm very worried about trying to come up with a robust implementation of
this in under 12 weeks. By contrast, the stringification that Łukasz is
proposing feels eminently doable.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 4 November 2017 at 00:40, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > IMO t
This sounds reasonable -- I think when we introduced this in 3.6 we were
worried that other implementations (e.g. Jython) would have a problem with
this, but AFAIK they've reported back that they can do this just fine. So
let's just document this as a language guarantee.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:
If type annotations are treated like implicit lambdas, then that's a first
step to something similar to Lisp's "special forms". A full generalization
of that would allow, for example, logging.debug to not evaluate its args
unless debugging is turned on (I use a logging.debug wrapper that allows
lam
+1, as Guido correctly recalls, this language guarantee will work well with
Jython when we get to the point of implementing 3.7+.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This sounds reasonable -- I think when we introduced this in 3.6 we were
> worried that other implementatio
On 5 November 2017 at 02:42, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm very worried about trying to come up with a robust implementation of
> this in under 12 weeks. By contrast, the stringification that Łukasz is
> proposing feels eminently doable.
I'm far from confident about that, as the string proposal i
On 5 November 2017 at 04:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This sounds reasonable -- I think when we introduced this in 3.6 we were
> worried that other implementations (e.g. Jython) would have a problem with
> this, but AFAIK they've reported back that they can do this just fine. So
> let's just docu
