[Python-Dev] PEP 484 proposal: don't default to Optional if argument default is None
Nick Coghlan
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue May 9 22:37:42 EDT 2017
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue May 9 22:37:42 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 484 proposal: don't default to Optional if argument default is None
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 484 proposal: don't default to Optional if argument default is None
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 10 May 2017 at 08:51, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 11:11 Carl Meyer <carl at oddbird.net> wrote: >> It might be nice to have a less verbose syntax for Optional, but that >> can be a separate discussion. > > You should be able to do that today with `from typing import Optional as Eh` > or whatever your preferred optional/maybe name is. :) While "from typing import Optional as Opt" can indeed help, perhaps PEP 505 should be updated to discuss this point in addition to the current proposals for None-aware binary operators? If it included a ? prefix operator as a shorthand for "typing.Optional[<expr>]", that would shorten affected declarations back to: def handle_employee(e: ?Employee = None) -> None: ... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 484 proposal: don't default to Optional if argument default is None
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 484 proposal: don't default to Optional if argument default is None
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list