Add text about Type[C]. #218
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 2 commits
May 13, 2016 12:27
This addresses #107 (but it doen't close it because the issue also calls for an implementation in typing.py).
| @@ -861,6 +861,73 @@ allow all operations on it, and a value of type ``Any`` can be assigned | |||
| to a variable (or used as a return value) of a more constrained type. | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| Meta-types | |||
| ---------- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think "Meta-types" is not a good name for this section for four reasons:
- This could add to the classes vs. types confusion: Unlike metaclasses that are quite different from classes, types do not have such hierarchy, since one should not type annotate types, one can only type annotate classes.
Type[C]has normal semantics of type: This is just a set of objects that respondTruetoissubclass(objc, C).- I think someone who is looking for a documentation of this feature will not look for "Meta-types", therefore I would propose to change this to a simpler title, like "Type annotating class objects".
- Finally, using such terminology could lead to proliferation of "meta": If we call annotations of values that are class objects by
Type[C]or byABCMetameta-types, then how are we supposed to call annotations of values that are metaclasses (byType[ABCMeta]for example)? Meta-meta-types? :-)
|
Miscellaneous things:
|
- Replaced section heading with "The type of class objects" and changed the opening sentence to match. - Drop "at runtime". - Replaced "is not allowed" with "is rejected by the type checker" (and then some). - Clarified that you can write Type[Union[...]] or Type[Any]. - Mentioned that a future PEP revision may deal with constructor signatures. - Clarified behavior when Type[Any] is used. - Clarify that Type[T] is covariant (though I'm not sure I understand the concept well enough here to explain it well -- by contrast, if Type[T] were invariant, what would change?).
|
Sent another omnibus update; please review! |
| rejected by the type checker (in addition to failing at runtime | ||
| because you can't instantiate a union). | ||
|
|
||
| Note that it *is* legal to use a union as the parameter for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand, you mean here "a union of classes", since in general Union can accept Tuple, Callable etc. If yes, then maybe it is better to mention this?
|
Clarified both in 2192c76. |
|
It looks good to me. I have no further comments. |
|
Looks good to me as well. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This addresses #107 (but it doen't close it because the issue also
calls for an implementation in typing.py).