[Python-Dev] PEP 563: Postponed Evaluation of Annotations

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

> If we have to change the name I'd vote for string_annotations -- "lazy"
> has too many other connotations (e.g. it might cause people to think it's
> the thunks). I find str_annotations too abbreviated, and
> stringify_annotations is too hard to spell.
>
>
​I can't say I disagree. ​And maybe importing string_annotations from the
__future__ doesn't sound quite as sad as importing something from the
__past__.

Anyway, it's not obvious to me that it is the module author that should
decide how the annotations are handled. See also this quote below:

(Quoted from the end of
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-October/047311.html )

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ​​[*] Maybe somehow make the existing functionality a phantom easter
> egg––a blast from the past which you can import and use, but which is
> otherwise invisible :-). Then later give warnings and finally remove it
> completely.
>
> But we need better smooth upgrade paths anyway, maybe something like:
>
> from __compat__ import unintuitive_decimal_contexts
>
> with unintuitive_decimal_contexts:
>     do_stuff()
>
> ​Now code bases can more quickly switch to new python versions and make
> the occasional compatibility adjustments more lazily, while already
> benefiting from other new language features.
>
>
> ––Koos​
>
>
>
-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171110/6d662a84/attachment.html>