Change the typing spec around string references #2144
Conversation
|
@JelleZijlstra Could you please pre-review this? What do you think about this spec change? |
|
I think I have integrated all the changes. Is it time to open an issue on the Typing Council’s issue tracker asking for a decision? |
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
carljm
left a comment
carljm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One wording nit, one formatting nit, and one conformance suite nit :) But overall this looks great to me.
rchen152
left a comment
rchen152
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me - much more consistent and clearly specified than before
carljm
left a comment
carljm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me. Thanks @davidhalter for getting this clarified.
|
I have integrated all of Carl's suggestions. I will update the conformance tests as soon as the typing council approves this change. If I update it now we probably just run into merge conflicts, since especially pyrefly changes a lot. @carljm Please let me know if you think something needs more work. |
6 participants
I added this after the discussion here: https://discuss.python.org/t/annotation-string-references-in-class-scope-in-conformance-tests/105439
I'm not 100% sure about the wording, but I hope the direction is fine. I would like to gather some feedback before presenting this to the typing council.
Please also merge #2139 before this pull request. Otherwise it will be very hard to update Zuban's conformance test results in this pull request.