On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11 November 2017 at 01:48, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >> > I don't mind the long name. Of all the options so far I really only like >> > 'string_annotations' so let's go with that. >> >> +1 from me. >> > > I'd like to reverse my stance on this. We had `from __future__ import > division` for many years in Python 2, and nobody argued that it implied > that Python 2 doesn't have division -- it just meant to import the future > *version* of division. So I think the original idea, `from __future__ > import annotations` is fine. I don't expect there will be *other* things > related to annotations that we'll be importing from the future. > > Furthermore, *nobody* expects the majority of programmers to look at __annotations__ either. But those who do need to care about the 'implementation detail' of whether it's a string won't be surprised to find nested strings like "'ForwardReferencedThing'". But one might fear that those cases get ruthlessly converted into being equivalent to just "ForwardReferencedThing". So actually my question is: What should happen when the annotation is already a string literal? -- Koos -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
_______________________________________________ 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
