> Even less, actually. > The PEP doesn't make a very clear distinction between invalid Python > syntax vs. invalid type annotation, so I wanted to check if we're on the > same page here: the newly valid syntax will be subject to PEP 387. > We clearly are on the same page, and I don't think you need to update > the PEP.
Ok, fair enough. > When I asked my curious question, I thought I misread a piece of text, > not that it's a detail that went unnoticed, and could delay the PEP. > I can't speak for the whole SC, but on the Monday meeting I'll suggest > accepting the PEP with a note that > - index assignment is also affected, and > - the details around multiple unpackings in a type expression aren't > specified precisely. This gives individual type checkers some leeway, > but can be tightened in future PEPs. Cool. Thanks, Petr!
_______________________________________________ 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/VZHGKB7SKI45GFP7BI7FDTO6ENOL4NL6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
