Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Hi Sebastian, Both Teddy (cc'd) and I would like to volunteer to help. We're excited about the prospect of an informational pyi PEP. Best, Rebecca On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:42 AM 'Adam Cataldo' via pytype < pyt...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Of course, we'd be happy to work

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Great Jelle! We look forward to working with you to. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM Jelle Zijlstra wrote: > > > 2018-07-17 9:55 GMT-07:00 Sebastian Rittau : > >> On 17.07.2018 17:05, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >>> This is a good point. I presume specifying this unambiguously would be a >>>

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Hi Sebastian, Of course, we'd be happy to work with you on this! We just need to figure out which of us will drive this on our end (most likely Rebecca or Teddy). I'll huddle with the team and get back to you with an answer on who later today. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:58 AM Sebastian Rittau

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

2018-07-17 9:55 GMT-07:00 Sebastian Rittau : > On 17.07.2018 17:05, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> This is a good point. I presume specifying this unambiguously would be a >> huge amount of work, and it would mostly codify mypy's current behavior. I >> don't think that's within the scope of PEP

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

On 17.07.2018 17:05, Guido van Rossum wrote: This is a good point. I presume specifying this unambiguously would be a huge amount of work, and it would mostly codify mypy's current behavior. I don't think that's within the scope of PEP 484, but it could well be done as a separate PEP (perhaps

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

This is a good point. I presume specifying this unambiguously would be a huge amount of work, and it would mostly codify mypy's current behavior. I don't think that's within the scope of PEP 484, but it could well be done as a separate PEP (perhaps an informational one?). I hope you understand

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

On 16.07.2018 19:21, Adam Cataldo via Python-Dev wrote: * * One thing we care about in particular, given the implementation of pytype, is the detailed definition of what goes in a .pyi file. Do folks think this makes sense to include as part of PEP 484, or would this be better

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Thanks, Rebecca! So the status of PEP 484 is that we don't want to add new features to it -- those require their own PEP. But we do accept PRs for clarifications, assuming the clarifications are about issues where the intention is clear but the text is not (usually because we thought there was

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Hi Guido and all, Let me try to clarify our (pytype team's) intentions a bit. Our overall goal is to see PEP 484 finalized, in the interest of having a definitive type-checking reference to point to and work off of. We're willing and eager to help with this, if we get some guidance on what the

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:44 PM Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> As one of the authors of PEP 484, *I* never thought there was an >> ambiguity here. The intention was for stub files to conform to the same >> grammar as regular .py files,

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:44 PM Guido van Rossum wrote: > As one of the authors of PEP 484, *I* never thought there was an ambiguity > here. The intention was for stub files to conform to the same grammar as > regular .py files, but with a different interpretation. > > > "Have the same syntax as

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

2018-07-16 10:21 GMT-07:00 Adam Cataldo via Python-Dev < python-dev@python.org>: > > > > > > *Hi Folks,Cc: Rebecca, pytypeThis is Adam Cataldo; I’m the engineering > manager for the Python team at Google. Rebecca Chen, our lead pytype > contributor, and I are

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

As one of the authors of PEP 484, *I* never thought there was an ambiguity here. The intention was for stub files to conform to the same grammar as regular .py files, but with a different interpretation. > "Have the same syntax as regular Python modules" and "are files containing type hints" are

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Thanks Brett and Teddy, Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle as folks dive into details, I'll re-ask my earlier question about stub files. Assuming there is consensus that there is ambiguity to resolve in the current definition, is updating the section on stub files the preferred option?

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

Hi, my name is Teddy Sudol. I work with Adam and Rebecca on pytype. The explanation of stub files is unclear. The section you linked starts with, "Stub files are files containing type hints that are only for use by the type checker, not at runtime." According to

Re: [Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 10:32 Adam Cataldo via Python-Dev < python-dev@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > *Hi Folks,Cc: Rebecca, pytypeThis is Adam Cataldo; I’m the engineering > manager for the Python team at Google. Rebecca Chen, our lead pytype > contributor, and

[Python-Dev] Question about PEP 484

*Hi Folks,Cc: Rebecca, pytypeThis is Adam Cataldo; I’m the engineering manager for the Python team at Google. Rebecca Chen, our lead pytype contributor, and I are interested in helping finalize PEP 484 if possible. To that end, we wanted to find out what