Message300254
Having ironed out my confusion over typing the method, I agree that making
the types more obvious is not a compelling argument for this change.
That said, I think the current API has been confusing to me in the past,
and I think the proposed change is still a worthwhile improvement for users
of this module.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM Guido van Rossum <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum added the comment:
>
> I think the proposed change is not worth it. Developments in type checking
> (in particular overloading) make it unambiguous what the return type will
> be from just a static inspection of the call site. (Given that the _UNSET
> value is intended to be private.) See also
> https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/3805#issuecomment-320561797
>
> ----------
> nosy: +gvanrossum
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue31129>
> _______________________________________
> |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-08-14 16:39:54 | odd_bloke | set | recipients:
+ odd_bloke, gvanrossum, r.david.murray, lukasz.langa |
2017-08-14 16:39:54 | odd_bloke | link | issue31129 messages |
2017-08-14 16:39:54 | odd_bloke | create | |
|