[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] inconsistency in annotated assigned targets

Thank you for the clarification! I should have looked through the PEPs

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

> PEP 526 has this in the "Rejected/Postponed Proposals" section:
> - **Allow annotations in** ``with`` **and** ``for`` **statement:**
>   This was rejected because in ``for`` it would make it hard to spot the
> actual
>   iterable, and in ``with`` it would confuse the CPython's LL(1) parser.
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2018-01-25 15:00 GMT-08:00 Joe Jevnik via Python-Dev <
>> python-dev at python.org>:
>>> Currently there are many ways to introduce variables in Python; however,
>>> only a few allow annotations. I was working on a toy language and chose to
>>> base my syntax on Python's when I noticed that I could not annotate a loop
>>> iteration variable. For example:
>>> for x: int in range(5):
>>>     ...
>>> This led me to search for other places where new variables are
>>> introduced and I noticed that the `as` target of a context manager cannot
>>> have an annotation. In the case of a context manager, it would probably
>>> need parenthesis to avoid ambiguity with a single-line with statement, for
>>> example:
>>> with ctx as (variable: annotation): body
>>> Finally, you cannot annotate individual members of a destructuring
>>> assignment like:
>>> a: int, b: int, c: int = 1, 2, 3
>>> Looking at the grammar, these appear to be `expr` or `exprlist` targets.
>>> One change may be to allow arbitrary expressions to have an annotation .
>>> This would be a small change to the grammar but would potentially have a
>>> large effect on the language or static analysis tools.
>>> I am posting on the mailing list to see if this is a real problem, and
>>> if so, is it worth investing any time to address it. I would be happy to
>>> attempt to fix this, but I don't want to start if people don't want the
>>> change. Also, I apologize if this should have gone to python-idea; this
>>> feels somewhere between a bug report and implementation question more than
>>> a new feature so I wasn't sure which list would be more appropriate.
>> I have written a fair amount of code with variable annotations, and I
>> don't remember ever wanting to add annotations in any of the three contexts
>> you mention. In practice, variable annotations are usually needed for
>> class/instance variables and for variables whose type the type checker
>> can't infer. The types of loop iteration variables and context manager
>> assignment targets can almost always be inferred trivially.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Python-Dev mailing list
>>> Python-Dev at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>>> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailma
>>> n/options/python-dev/jelle.zijlstra%40gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%
>> 40python.org
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180125/0fcab860/attachment.html>