This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author Greg Price
Recipients Greg Price, benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, lemburg, miss-islington, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2019-08-14.04:55:23
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> From my perspective, the main problem with using type annotations is that there's nothing checking them in CI.

Yeah, fair concern. In fact I think I'm on video (from PyCon 2018) warning everyone not to do that in their codebases, because what you really don't want is a bunch of annotations that have gradually accumulated falsehoods as the code has changed around them.

Still, I think from "some annotations + no checking" the good equilibrium to land in "some annotations + checking", not "no annotations + no checking". (I do mean "some" -- I don't predict we'll ever go sweep all over adding them.) And I think the highest-probability way to get there is to let them continue to accumulate where people occasionally add them in new/revised code... because that holds a door open for someone to step up to start checking them, and then to do the work to make that part of CI. (That someone might even be me! But I can think of plenty of other likely folks to do it.)

If we accumulated quite a lot of them and nobody had yet stepped up to make checking happen, I'd worry.  But with the smattering we currently have, I think that point is far off.
Date User Action Args
2019-08-14 04:55:24Greg Pricesetrecipients: + Greg Price, lemburg, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, serhiy.storchaka, miss-islington
2019-08-14 04:55:24Greg Pricesetmessageid: <>
2019-08-14 04:55:24Greg Pricelinkissue37760 messages
2019-08-14 04:55:23Greg Pricecreate