python / python/typing

[spec] clarification or change of "`partial\n` in a `py.typed` file"

Ouverte
#2,113 0 commentaires 0 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

topic: typing spec
Langage dominant
Python
Étoiles
1.8k
Forks
302
Merge moyen
23 h
PR mergées (30 j)
8

Description

Reading through https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/distributing.html#partial-stub-packages today for unrelated purposes, it struck me that the occurrences of partial\n are ambiguous because it could be interpreted as requiring literally a backslash and an n. Furthermore, assuming \n is actually not to be taken literally (which is reasonable given that other places in the spec use glob stars anyway, although never in something you actually type into a file) it's ambiguous what happens if you use CRLF or CR as line terminators in your file. This also seems to rule out a file that just contains partial and then ends, without a newline character (you're not "supposed to" do this, but it happens).

To keep exactly the current behavior, I think this verbiage should be tweaked to "partial, followed by a newline". Perhaps the linefeed and carriage return characters could be mentioned explicitly, or a mention can be made of universal newlines.

However, I am not sure if the current behavior is actually important to specify, and I think other possibilities make more sense. Other possibilities include "partial on a line by itself", "partial surrounded by any amount of whitespace", and just "partial". "As the sole content of the file" may be added if desired.

A brief survey suggests that:

  • mypy does fscache.read(stub_typed_file).decode().strip() == "partial", which is not quite the same as the specified check
  • pyright does (pyTypedContents.match(/partial\n/) || pyTypedContents.match(/partial\r\n/)), which is certainly a reasonable interpretation of the current spec, especially if you assume that no one ever uses only-CR newlines
  • ty does to_ascii_lowercase().contains("partial") to be deliberately permissive, as explained in a comment

There is a reasonably long discussion about this topic over at https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-561-clarification-regarding-n/32875, but I didn't find it very enlightening.

Guide de contribution

Aucun guide de contribution indexé pour ce dépôt

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Piste de recherche

Commencez par lire la section sur les paquets de stubs partiels dans distributing.html, puis comparez les vérifications liées de mypy, pyright et ty ainsi que le fil de discussion référencé sur discuss.python.org. Le travail est terminé lorsque la règle de correspondance prévue est définie et que la spécification est mise à jour pour l’énoncer sans ambiguïté, y compris le comportement concernant les sauts de ligne et la fin du fichier.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Évaluation

Stack technique
python
Domaine
documentation
Type d'issue
Documentation
Difficulté
5/5
Temps estimé
Plus d'une semaine
Activité
À l'abandon
Clarté
Plutôt claire
Accessibilité débutants
35/100

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.