Typing spec should be clearer that type checkers are not expected to support PEP 3141
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 1.8k
- 派生
- 302
- 平均合并
- 23 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 8
描述
With regards to the numeric tower, PEP 484 states:
PEP 3141 defines Python’s numeric tower, and the stdlib module
numbersimplements the corresponding ABCs (Number,Complex,Real,RationalandIntegral). There are some issues with these ABCs, but the built-in concrete numeric classescomplex,floatandintare ubiquitous (especially the latter two :-).Rather than requiring that users write
import numbersand then usenumbers.Floatetc., this PEP proposes a straightforward shortcut that is almost as effective: when an argument is annotated as having typefloat, an argument of typeintis acceptable; similar, for an argument annotated as having typecomplex, arguments of typefloatorintare acceptable. This does not handle classes implementing the corresponding ABCs or thefractions.Fractionclass, but we believe those use cases are exceedingly rare.
This is a very useful passage to link to, because:
- It clearly (albeit tersely) states that the PEP-3141 ABCs are problematic
- It clearly states the separate solution that PEP-484 proposes for dealing with numeric types
- It frames the PEP-484 solution in opposition and contrast to the PEP-3141 solution
The parallel passage in the typing spec currently states this:
Python’s numeric types
complex,floatandintare not subtypes of each other, but to support common use cases, the type system contains a straightforward shortcut: when an argument is annotated as having typefloat, an argument of typeintis acceptable; similar, for an argument annotated as having typecomplex, arguments of typefloatorintare acceptable.
Since PEP-484 is a historical document rather than a piece of living documentation, it would be great if the typing spec could state as clearly as PEP-484 that the PEP-3141 ABCs are not the recommended way of annotating numeric types in Python, and that type checkers may not necessarily (and in fact probably won't ever) support them.
贡献指南
这个仓库没有索引到贡献指南
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 typing spec 的“Special cases for float and complex”页面开始,将其措辞与链接的 PEP 484 和 PEP 3141 相关段落进行比较。明确说明 PEP 3141 的 ABCs 不是推荐的数值注解,并且类型检查器可能不支持它们;更新后的段落应保留现有的数值快捷写法说明。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- python
- 领域
- documentation
- Issue 类型
- 文档
- 难度
- 2/5
- 预计耗时
- 1-3 小时
- 活跃度
- 停滞
- 描述清晰度
- 描述清楚
- 新手友好度
- 38/100