Typing spec should be clearer that type checkers are not expected to support PEP 3141
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Stale
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Start with the typing spec’s “Special cases for float and complex” page and compare its wording with the linked PEP 484 and PEP 3141 passages. Clarify that PEP 3141 ABCs are not the recommended numeric annotations and that type checkers may not support them; the updated passage should preserve the existing numeric shortcut explanation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
With regards to the numeric tower, PEP 484 states:
PEP 3141 defines Python’s numeric tower, and the stdlib module
numbersimplements the corresponding ABCs (Number,Complex,Real,RationalandIntegral). There are some issues with these ABCs, but the built-in concrete numeric classescomplex,floatandintare ubiquitous (especially the latter two :-).Rather than requiring that users write
import numbersand then usenumbers.Floatetc., this PEP proposes a straightforward shortcut that is almost as effective: when an argument is annotated as having typefloat, an argument of typeintis acceptable; similar, for an argument annotated as having typecomplex, arguments of typefloatorintare acceptable. This does not handle classes implementing the corresponding ABCs or thefractions.Fractionclass, but we believe those use cases are exceedingly rare.
This is a very useful passage to link to, because:
- It clearly (albeit tersely) states that the PEP-3141 ABCs are problematic
- It clearly states the separate solution that PEP-484 proposes for dealing with numeric types
- It frames the PEP-484 solution in opposition and contrast to the PEP-3141 solution
The parallel passage in the typing spec currently states this:
Python’s numeric types
complex,floatandintare not subtypes of each other, but to support common use cases, the type system contains a straightforward shortcut: when an argument is annotated as having typefloat, an argument of typeintis acceptable; similar, for an argument annotated as having typecomplex, arguments of typefloatorintare acceptable.
Since PEP-484 is a historical document rather than a piece of living documentation, it would be great if the typing spec could state as clearly as PEP-484 that the PEP-3141 ABCs are not the recommended way of annotating numeric types in Python, and that type checkers may not necessarily (and in fact probably won't ever) support them.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 1.8k
- Forks
- 302
- Avg merge
- 23h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from python/typing
-
topic: typing spec
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
topic: typing spec
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
topic: documentation
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
-
topic: documentation
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
-
topic: conformance tests topic: typing spec
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 72/100
Similar issues
-
Add: hunch Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
AbdelStark/awesome-typesafe#104 ·
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
DiamondLightSource/dodal#2211 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
openml/openml-python#1749 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
sipyourdrink-ltd/bernstein#6191 ·