Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 695 -- Type Parameter Syntax: Proposed changes #186

Closed
JelleZijlstra opened this issue Apr 26, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

PEP 695 -- Type Parameter Syntax: Proposed changes #186

JelleZijlstra opened this issue Apr 26, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
PEP Python Enhancement Proposal

Comments

@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

While implementing PEP-695 I ran into a few issues that I think are best addressed by changing the PEP. The biggest change is to make type alias values and TypeVar bounds and constraints lazily evaluated, in line with the proposed semantics of PEP-649.

The proposed changes are here: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/3122/files.

My implementation in python/cpython#103763 already implements the proposed semantics.

Please take a look and let me know if you agree with these changes.

@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member Author

I pushed another proposed change: python/peps@f446963. This comes out of the discussion in https://discuss.python.org/t/please-consider-delaying-or-even-rejecting-pep-695/26408 and specifies the scoping rules more concretely. I believe it is consistent with the scoping rules already present in the PEP, but more concrete and precise.

@Yhg1s
Copy link
Member

Yhg1s commented May 8, 2023

The SC is happy with both of the proposed semantics changes, and the updated text.

@Yhg1s Yhg1s closed this as completed May 8, 2023
@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PEP Python Enhancement Proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants