Documenting specialisation rules

I wasn't aware there were discrepancies between type checkers about this. Coming from https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/issues/5830, PEP 718 will require documentation about specialisation for functions and PEP 696 requires documentation about whether methods should bind default type parameters for the class.

PEP 718 problems

from typing_extensions import assert_type

class Foo[T, U]:
    def bar(self): ...

class Baz[U](Foo[int, U]):
    ...

# sorry for using PEP 677 syntax but it's easier to follow
# also Unknown is implicit Any (borrowed from pyright)
assert_type(Foo.bar, (self: Foo[Unknown, Unknown]) -> None)
assert_type(Baz.bar, (self: Foo[int, Unknown]) -> None)
assert_type(Foo[str, str].bar, (self: Foo[str, str]) -> None)

Foo[str, int].bar(Foo[str, int]())  # fine
Foo[int, int].bar(Baz[int]())  # fine
Baz.bar(Foo[str, int]())  # should error as Self is bound to Baz not Foo

MyPy

MyPy currently shows methods not binding type parameters at all which is problematic as type parameters should be bound in the scope they are defined. This behaviour is also I think incorrect in allowing the final call to pass as it is ignoring the specialisation of the class.

Pyright

Pyright currently shows, it isn't binding U to Unknown.

PEP 696 problems

from typing_extensions import assert_type

class Spam[T=int]:
    def meth[U](self, another: U, other: T) -> U:
        ...

assert_type(Spam.meth, (self: Spam[int], another: U, other: int) -> U)

MyPy

MyPy currently shows and appears to be binding T's default as I thought it should (good mind reading skills Marc), however, it is still suffering from the problems proposed above and would ignore any prior specialisation.

Pyright

Pyright currently shows meth as being partially unknown which is what I opened the original issue about.

A __new__ issue (🥁) W.R.T. PEP 718

Say I have a generic __new__/__init__ method that uses parameters that aren't bound by the class.

class New[T]:
    def __new__[U](cls, arg: T, l: list[U], elem: U):
        self = super().__new__(cls)
        l.append(elem)

This may seem a bit contrived but it can come up where there's a mapping between types e.g. for registering types for serialisation.

How should this be specialisable? A couple of options:

• New[T, U]() is fine:
  What about if it's added in init?
  • Class[ClassParams, ..., NewParams, ..., InitParams, ...]
  • Should order be lexicographical? I don't think there's a world in which this is practical
• Manually call through the __new__ method yourself and __init__ can't add any new type parameters.

My preference would be manually constructing the class through __new__ because the other case seems full of edge cases and is a special case with no real gain.

Summary of my thoughts

class Summary0[T, U]:
    def bar(self): ...

class Summary0Sub[U](Summary0[int, U]):
    ...

# Summary0 should bind type parameters in the scope they were defined
Summary0.bar  # should warn about implicit Any
# A specialised Summary0 should modify the type of self in methods
Summary0[int, bool].bar  # `self` should be Summary0[int, bool]
Summary0Sub[bool].bar  # `self` should be Summary0Sub[bool]

class Summary1[T=int]:
    def meth(self) -> T: ...

# defaults should bind on method access if not specialised
assert_type(Summary1().meth(), int)
assert_type(Summary1[str]().meth(), str)

class Summary2[T]:
    def id[U](self, x: U) -> tuple[T, U]: ...

assert_type(Summary2[bool]().id[str]("hi"), tuple[bool, str])
Summary2.id[int, str]  # error expected 1 type param not 2


class Summary3[T]:
    def __new__[U](cls, arg: T, l: list[U], elem: U): ...

Summary3[int].__new__[complex](1, [], 1j)
Summary3[int, complex](1, [], 1j)  # errors because special cases aren't special enough to break the rules

Does anyone have any objections to this? Where is this best documented neither PEP really feels like the right place for all of this.

Would be nice to hear from the MyPy and Pyright teams on this.

Inizia leggendo i link a PEP 718 e PEP 696 e le riproduzioni collegate di MyPy e Pyright, quindi confronta il comportamento di specializzazione descritto negli esempi. Determina quali regole sono condivise e dove devono essere collocate nella documentazione di typing. Il lavoro è completo quando le regole, incluso il caso new, sono documentate con gli esempi pertinenti e non dipendono più da un’interpretazione irrisolta.