Hello, On Sun, 17 May 2020 14:31:34 +0200 Alex Hall <alex.moj...@gmail.com> wrote:
[] > If we consider the arrow, what about ≤ instead of <=, ≥ instead of > >=, ≠ instead of !=, × instead of `*`, and math.π instead of math.pi? Before this goes too a big shaky bikeshed over almost nothing, let me point out that if you're looking to improve something in type annotations, I would suggest to look for true ugliness there. Something like Callable[[Dict[str, int], Sequence[Foo]], Dict[PrimaryKey, List[int]]]. That's rather unreadable. Actually, let me just quote https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#typing.Callable > Callable type; Callable[[int], str] is a function of (int) -> str. Lolwhat? If it's a function of "(int) -> str", then it should be written just about like that. With https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0563/ , a lot of things which weren't previously possible, are now possible. Somebody should start thinking how to take advantage of that, up to allowing "(int) -> str". Which is apparently not possible currently, as while "evaluation" is postponed, it still should parse eagerly as Python syntax. But even {(int): str} is a better type annotation for a function than Callable[[int], str]. And if we e.g. talk about making "->" a special operator which would allow it to appear in other contexts than function definition, "(int) -> str" (and other interesting annotation syntaxes) would be possible. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/CTS42YQ6N3Q44WHY2Y4CRAF6NISQNZUW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
