Author flying sheep
Recipients evan_, flying sheep, gvanrossum, levkivskyi
Date 2017-01-16.10:03:57
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1484561037.69.0.944534639977.issue29262@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Cool! This set of basic initial check will consist of all the is_* functions that were mentioned right?

FWIW I also think that this is the way to go, as it’s not obvious if the semantics should be “conforms to this type annotation” or “is a type annotation of that kind” or other variants.

In case this isn’t already too much future think: What should be the way forward from there? E.g. when working with Union[A, B], you will probably want to get “(A, B)”.

So will that mean more introspection functions (like union_types(Union[str,int]),
or public APIs for typings (e.g. a_union.__iter__() or a_union.types)?
History
Date User Action Args
2017-01-16 10:03:57flying sheepsetrecipients: + flying sheep, gvanrossum, levkivskyi, evan_
2017-01-16 10:03:57flying sheepsetmessageid: <1484561037.69.0.944534639977.issue29262@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-01-16 10:03:57flying sheeplinkissue29262 messages
2017-01-16 10:03:57flying sheepcreate