Is there a good reason why `Mapping.__contains__` expects `object`, but `Mapping.get` expects a strict type?
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 5.1k
- Fork
- 2.1k
- Merge medio
- 1g 19h
- PR unite (30g)
- 82
Descrizione
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.
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
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.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- python
- Ambito
- tooling
- Tipo di issue
- Bug
- Difficoltà
- 4/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Idoneità per principianti
- 38/100