On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 04:07:33PM -0700, Caleb Donovick wrote:
> My own personal use for this would be for generating anonymous protocols
> and dataclasses:
>
> class T(Protocol):
> x: int
> y: str
> # with some abuse of notation obviously these would generate unique
> typesassert T == Struct[x=int, y=str]
I don't know how to interpret these examples. What's Protocol and where
does it come from? What's Struct?
As I recall, one of the motivations for re-visiting PEP 472 is to allow
such keyword notation in type hints, so that we could write
Struct[x=int, y=str]
in a type hint and have it mean a struct with fields x (an int) and y (a
str). I'm not sure whether that use in type hinting would allow the use
of this Struct to create anonymous classes. I suppose it would, but I'm
not expert enough on type hints to be sure.
But assuming the two uses are compatible, I must say that having the
same notation for type-hinting a struct and actually creating an
anonymous struct class would be desirable:
def func(widget:Struct[x=int, y=str]) -> gadget:
pass
# Later:
MyWidget = Struct[x=int, y=str]
func(MyWidget(19, 'hello'))
I really like the look of that, and I think that having the Struct call
use the same subscript notation as the Struct type hint is a plus.
> While I would not personally use this I think a real killer app would be
> slicing named axis, as the slice syntax is exclusive to geitem and hence
> can not leverage the dict trick.
This is one of the motivating use-cases of PEP 472.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
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/HLXSO2KSOB62Z4RI7SA52DHWGCGECATC/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
