Author odd_bloke
Recipients gvanrossum, lukasz.langa, odd_bloke, r.david.murray
Date 2017-08-14.16:39:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CABeyjhvCi0ETPc=YP4rxnfkeEF9a6E2mnENG7-kiGnZ7Hp0X6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1502078933.65.0.798462902744.issue31129@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
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>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2017-08-14 16:39:54odd_blokesetrecipients: + odd_bloke, gvanrossum, r.david.murray, lukasz.langa
2017-08-14 16:39:54odd_blokelinkissue31129 messages
2017-08-14 16:39:54odd_blokecreate