Is there a good reason why `Mapping.__contains__` expects `object`, but `Mapping.get` expects a strict type?
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- Python
- Sterne
- 5.1k
- Forks
- 2.1k
- Ø Merge
- 1 T. 19 Std.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 82
Beschreibung
I ran into a case where a user intended to check whether an enum value x was present in a dictionary Dict[int, int]: x.value in d.
But instead they wrote x in d, which always fails, since the Enum itself is never a key in the dictionary. The type checker didn't complain since the typeshed stub for Mapping.__contains__ accepts any type compatible with object:
def __contains__(self, __o: object) -> bool: ...
However, if the user had used d.get(x), the type checker would have complained, because the typeshed stub for Mapping.get is stricter:
def get(self, __key: _KT) -> _VT_co | None: ...
Simple repro:
d: dict[int, int] = {1: 2}
# no type error
'hello' in d
# type error
d.get('hello')
It looks like the stub for __contains__ has expected object ever since typing.pyi was added to typeshed (in 2015). If the idea is that users may want to check for existence of keys of arbitrary types, a similar argument would hold for d.get(x).
Is there a good reason why the stub complains about d.get(x) but not x in d? Otherwise, it'd be good to make __contains__ stricter.
Beitragsleitfaden
Erste Schritte
- Lies das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreib ins Issue, dass du es übernimmst — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forke das Repository und arbeite in einem Branch.
- Öffne einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Rechercherichtung
Read the Mapping.contains and Mapping.get stubs in typing.pyi, starting with the historical object annotation for contains. Reproduce the issue with the Dict[int, int] examples, then determine whether the annotations should be made consistent; done means the decision is documented in the issue and the relevant stub reflects it if a change is warranted.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Bewertung
- Tech-Stack
- python
- Bereich
- tooling
- Issue-Typ
- Bug
- Schwierigkeit
- 4/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- 3-5 Tage
- Aktivitätsstatus
- Veraltet
- Klarheit
- Größtenteils klar
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 38/100