Types for "truthy" and "falsy" values

未列出任何实现文件或测试。先查看 truthy 和 falsy 示例，然后阅读链接的 intersection-types 提案以及 typing project 的指导；只有在设计和预期的类型检查行为达成一致，并且相关的 typing 支持得到明确规定后，这项工作才算完成。

I found this function in our codebase and I'm trying to type it:

def run_until_truthy(fn, num_tries=5):
    for _ in range(num_tries):
        if res := fn():
            return res

    Exception('Giving up.')

The function repeatedly calls a callable without arguments until it returns a "truthy" value. Then it returns that value. Easy enough:

def run_until_truthy[T](fn: Callable[[], T], num_tries: int = 5) -> T: ...

This is correct but too restrictive. Usages like this don't work:

def load_something() -> str | None:
    pass

# mypy: Incompatible types in assignment (expression has type "str | None", variable has type "str")
something: str = run_until_truthy(load_something)

I can hack it to make it work:

type Falsy = Literal[None, False, 0, "", b""] | tuple[()]

def run_until_truthy[T](fn: Callable[[], T | Falsy], num_tries: int = 5) -> T: ...

Does it make sense to add official Truthy and Falsy types to the standard library?

Maybe a Truthy type would also make sense. Truthy can't be defined as a type alias of existing types, but could probably also be useful sometimes, e.g. to type the following function:

def get_falsy_values[T](seq: list[T | Truthy]) -> list[T]:
    return [i for i in seq if not i]

From thinking about it for a few minutes, I think Falsy would be more often useful than Truthy, at least in combination with the current typing features.

If there's an intersection type constructor at some point, the above examples could be written like this instead, which might be easier to understand:

def run_until_truthy[T](fn: Callable[[], T], num_tries: int = 5) -> T & Truthy: ...

def get_falsy_values[T](seq: list[T]) -> list[T & Falsy]:

2024-11-25

• Updated to PEP 695 syntax.
• Using & instead of Intersection[] in example using proposed intersection types.