Properties `.start`, `.stop`, `. step` of (generic) `slice[...]` should be optional (`| None`)
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 5.1k
- 派生
- 2.1k
- 平均合并
- 1 天 19 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 82
描述
Situation
#13008 made slice.__new__ more precise. Generic slice[T] accepts T | None as arguments when creating a slice.
However, properties .start, .stop, . step of (generic) slice[...] are typed as there respective types, i.e. T in above example.
Consequence
This leads to typecheckers accepting:
def test(s: slice[int]) -> None:
assert_type(s.start, int)
if s.start is None:
assert_never(s.start)
whereas below obviously breaks:
test(slice(42))
Solution
Therefore, I suggest properties .start, .stop, . step should have optional (| None) return types:
@property
def start(self) -> _StartT_co | None: ...
@property
def step(self) -> _StepT_co | None: ...
@property
def stop(self) -> _StopT_co | None: ...
Alternative
Currently, typeshed uses slice[...] as slice[T | None] explicitly as per #13007, e.g.
class str:
def __getitem__(self, key: SupportsIndex | slice[SupportsIndex | None], /) -> str: ...
While that works/typechecks correctly:
def test(s: slice[int | None]) -> None:
assert_type(s.start, int | None)
if s.start is None or isinstance(s.start, int):
pass
else:
assert_never(s.start)
test(slice(42)) # okay
test(slice('x')) # error: Argument 1 to "slice" has incompatible type "str"; expected "int | None" [arg-type]
I see as downsides:
- it's error-prone / less ergonomic
- it renders part of #13008
__new__overloading complexity superfluous - it made #13007 more complex
Question
@Sachaa-Thanasius: Was the proposed solution considered for #13007?
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
调研方向
从 typeshed 的通用 slice stub 开始,结合 #13007 中的替代方案,检查 #13008 讨论的 new 注解。将 issue 中的 slice(42) 示例与 .start、.stop 和 .step 的类型进行对照;当注解保留 None 且所示的类型检查行为正确时即完成。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- python
- 领域
- devtools
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 难度
- 2/5
- 预计耗时
- 1-3 小时
- 活跃度
- 停滞
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 新手友好度
- 55/100