Notice: While Javascript is not essential for this website, your interaction with the content will be limited. Please turn Javascript on for the full experience.

PEP 649 -- Deferred Evaluation Of Annotations Using Descriptors

Title:Deferred Evaluation Of Annotations Using Descriptors
Author:Larry Hastings <larry at>
Type:Standards Track


As of Python 3.9, Python supports two different behaviors for annotations:

  • original Python semantics, in which annotations are evaluated at the time they are bound, and
  • PEP 563 semantics, currently enabled per-module by from __future__ import annotations, in which annotations are converted back into strings and must be parsed by eval() to be used.

Original Python semantics created a circular references problem for static typing analysis. PEP 563 solved that problem, but its novel semantics introduced new problems.

This PEP proposes a third way that embodies the best of both previous approaches. It solves the same circular reference problems solved by PEP 563, while preserving Python's original straightforward runtime semantics for annotations.

In this new approach, the code to generate the annotations dict is written to its own callable, and __annotations__ is a "data descriptor" which calls the callable once and preserves the result.

If accepted, these new semantics for annotations would initially be gated behind from __future__ import co_annotations. However, these semantics would eventually be promoted to be the default behavior. Thus this PEP would supercede PEP 563, and PEP 563's behavior would be deprecated and eventually removed.



The code presented in this section is highly simplified for clarity. The intention is to communicate the high-level concepts involved without getting lost in with the details. The actual details are often quite different. See the Implementation section later in this PEP for a much more accurate description of how this PEP works.

Consider this example code:

def foo(x: int = 3, y: MyType = None) -> float:
class MyType:
foo_y_type = foo.__annotations__['y']

As we see here, annotations are available at runtime through an __annotations__ attribute on functions, classes, and modules. When annotations are specified on one of these objects, __annotations__ is a dictionary mapping the names of the fields to the value specified as that field's annotation.

The default behavior in Python 3.9 is to evaluate the expressions for the annotations, and build the annotations dict, at the time the function, class, or module is bound. At runtime the above code actually works something like this:

annotations = {'x': int, 'y': MyType, 'return': float}
def foo(x = 3, y = "abc"):
foo.__annotations__ = annotations
class MyType:
foo_y_type = foo.__annotations__['y']

The crucial detail here is that the values int, MyType, and float are looked up at the time the function object is bound, and these values are stored in the annotations dict. But this code doesn't run—it throws a NameError on the first line, because MyType hasn't been defined yet.

PEP 563's solution is to decompile the expressions back into strings, and store those strings in the annotations dict. The equivalent runtime code would look something like this:

annotations = {'x': 'int', 'y': 'MyType', 'return': 'float'}
def foo(x = 3, y = "abc"):
foo.__annotations__ = annotations
class MyType:
foo_y_type = foo.__annotations__['y']

This code now runs successfully. However, foo_y_type is no longer a reference to MyType, it is the string 'MyType'. The code would have to be further modified to call eval() or typing.get_type_hints() to convert the string into a useful reference to the actual MyType object.

This PEP proposes a third approach, delaying the evaluation of the annotations by computing them in their own function. If this PEP was active, the generated code would work something like this:

class function:
    # __annotations__ on a function object is already a
    # "data descriptor" in Python, we're just changing what it does
    def __annotations__(self):
        return self.__co_annotations__()

# ...

def foo_annotations_fn():
    return {'x': int, 'y': MyType, 'return': float}
def foo(x = 3, y = "abc"):
foo.__co_annotations__ = foo_annotations_fn
class MyType:
foo_y_type = foo.__annotations__['y']

The important change is that the code constructing the annotations dict now lives in a function—here, called foo_annotations__fn(). But this function isn't called until we ask for the value of foo.__annotations__, and we don't do that until after the definition of MyType. So this code also runs successfully, and foo_y_type now has the correct value, the class MyType.


Python's original semantics for annotations made its use for static type analysis painful due to forward reference problems. This was the main justification for PEP 563, and we need not revisit those arguments here.

However, PEP 563's solution was to decompile code for Python annotations back into strings at compile time, requiring users of annotations to eval() those strings to restore them to their actual Python values. This has several drawbacks:

  • It requires Python implementations to stringize their annotations. This is surprising behavior—unprecedented for a language-level feature. Also, adding this feature to CPython was complicated, and this complicated code would need to be reimplemented independently by every other Python implementation.
  • It requires a code change every time existing code uses an annotation, to handle converting the stringized annotation back into a useful value.
  • eval() is slow.
  • eval() isn't always available; it's sometimes removed from Python for space reasons.
  • In order to evaluate the annotations stored with a class, it requires obtaining a reference to that class's globals, which PEP 563 suggests should be done by looking up that class by name in sys.modules—another surprising requirement for a language-level feature.
  • It adds an ongoing maintenance burden to Python implementations. Every time the language adds a new feature available in expressions, the implementation's stringizing code must be updated in tandem to support decompiling it.

This PEP also solves the forward reference problem outlined in PEP 563 while avoiding the problems listed above:

  • Python implementations would generate annotations as code objects. This is simpler than stringizing, and is something Python implementations are already quite good at. This means:
    • alternate implementations would need to write less code to implement this feature, and
    • the implementation would be simpler overall, which should reduce its ongoing maintenance cost.
  • Code examining annotations at runtime would no longer need to use eval() or anything else—it would automatically get the correct values. This is easier, almost certainly faster, and removes the dependency on eval().

Backwards Compatibility

PEP 563 changed the semantics of annotations. When its semantics are active, annotations must assume they will be evaluated in module-level scope. They may no longer refer directly to local variables or class attributes. This PEP retains that semantic change, also requiring that annotations be evaluated in module-level scope. Thus, code changed so its annotations are compatible with PEP 563 should already compatible with this aspect of this PEP and would not need further change. Modules still using stock semantics would have to be revised so its annotations evaluate properly in module-level scope, in the same way they would have to be to achieve compatibility with PEP 563.

PEP 563 also requires using eval() or typing.get_type_hints() to examine annotations. Code updated to work with PEP 563 that calls eval() directly would have to be updated simply to remove the eval() call. Code using typing.get_type_hints() would continue to work unchanged, though future use of that function would become optional in most cases.

Because this PEP makes the same backwards-compatible change to annotation scoping as PEP 563, this PEP will be initially gated with a per-module from __future__ import co_annotations before it eventually becomes the default behavior.

Apart from these two changes already discussed:

  • the evaluation of values in annotation dicts will be delayed until the __annotations__ attribute is evaluated, and
  • annotations are now evaluated in module-level scope,

this PEP preserves nearly all existing behavior of annotations dicts. Specifically:

  • Annotations dicts are mutable, and any changes to them are preserved.
  • The __annotations__ attribute can be explicitly set, and any value set this way will be preserved.
  • The __annotations__ attribute can be deleted using the del statement.

However, there are two uncommon interactions possible with class and module annotations that work today—both with stock semantics, and with PEP 563 semantics—that would no longer work when this PEP was active. These two interactions would have to be prohibited. The good news is, neither is common, and neither is considered good practice. In fact, they're rarely seen outside of Python's own regression test suite. They are:

  • Code that sets annotations on module or class attributes from inside any kind of flow control statement. It's currently possible to set module and class attributes with annotations inside an if or try statement, and it works as one would expect. It's untenable to support this behavior when this PEP is active.
  • Code in module or class scope that references or modifies the local __annotations__ dict directly. Currently, when setting annotations on module or class attributes, the generated code simply creates a local __annotations__ dict, then sets mappings in it as needed. It's also possible for user code to directly modify this dict, though this doesn't seem like it's an intentional feature. Although it'd be possible to support this after a fashion when this PEP was active, the semantics would likely be surprising and wouldn't make anyone happy.

Note that these are both also pain points for static type checkers, and are unsupported by those checkers. It seems reasonable to declare that both are at the very least unsupported, and their use results in undefined behavior. It might be worth making a small effort to explicitly prohibit them with compile-time checks.

There's one more idiom that's actually somewhat common when dealing with class annotations, and which will become more problematic when this PEP is active: code often accesses class annotations via cls.__dict__.get("__annotations__", {}) rather than simply cls.__annotations__. It's due to a flaw in the original design of annotations themselves. This topic will be examined in a separate discussion; the outcome of that discussion will likely guide the future evolution of this PEP.

Mistaken Rejection Of This Approach In November 2017

During the early days of discussion around PEP 563, using code to delay the evaluation of annotations was briefly discussed, in a November 2017 thread in comp.lang.python-dev. At the time the technique was termed an "implicit lambda expression".

Guido van Rossum—Python's BDFL at the time—replied, asserting that these "implicit lambda expression" wouldn't work, because they'd only be able to resolve symbols at module-level scope:

IMO the inability of referencing class-level definitions from annotations on methods pretty much kills this idea.

This led to a short discussion about extending lambda-ized annotations for methods to be able to refer to class-level definitions, by maintaining a reference to the class-level scope. This idea, too, was quickly rejected.

PEP 563 summarizes the above discussion here:

What's puzzling is PEP 563's own changes to the scoping rules of annotations—it also doesn't permit annotations to reference class-level definitions. It's not immediately clear why an inability to reference class-level definitions was enough to reject using "implicit lambda expressions" for annotations, but was acceptable for stringized annotations.

In retrospect there was probably a pivot during the development of PEP 563. It seems that, early on, there was a prevailing assumption that PEP 563 would support references to class-level definitions. But by the time PEP 563 was finalized, this assumption had apparently been abandoned. And it looks like "implicit lambda expressions" were never reconsidered in this new light.

PEP 563 semantics have shipped in three major Python releases. These semantics are now widely used in organizations depending on static type analysis. Evaluating annotations at module-level scope is clearly acceptable to all interested parties. Therefore delayed evaluation of annotations with code using the same scoping rules is obviously also completely viable.


There's a prototype implementation of this PEP, here:

As of this writing, all features described in this PEP are implemented, and there are some rudimentary tests in the test suite. There are still some broken tests, and the repo is many months behind.

from __future__ import co_annotations

In the prototype, the semantics presented in this PEP are gated with:

from __future__ import co_annotations


Python supports runtime metadata for annotations for three different types: function, classes, and modules. The basic approach to implement this PEP is much the same for all three with only minor variations.

With this PEP, each of these types adds a new attribute, __co_annotations__, with the following semantics:

  • __co_annotations__ is always set, and may contain either None or a callable.
  • __co_annotations__ cannot be deleted.
  • __annotations__ and __co_annotations__ can't both be set to a useful value simultaneously:
    • If you set __annotations__ to a dict, this also sets __co_annotations__ to None.
    • If you set __co_annotations__ to a callable, this also deletes __annotations__

Internally, __co_annotations__ is a "data descriptor", where functions are called whenever user code gets, sets, or deletes the attribute. In all three cases, the object has a separate internal place to store the current value of the __co_annotations__ attribute.

__annotations__ is also reimplemented as a data descriptor, with its own separate internal storage for its internal value. The code implementing the "get" for __annotations__ works something like this:

if (the internal value is set)
    return the internal annotations dict
if (__co_annotations__ is not None)
    call the __co_annotations__ function
    if the result is a dict:
        store the result as the internal value
        set __co_annotations__ to None
        return the internal value
do whatever this object does when there are no annotations

Unbound code objects

When Python code defines one of these three objects with annotations, the Python compiler generates a separate code object which builds and returns the appropriate annotations dict. The "annotation code object" is then stored unbound as the internal value of __co_annotations__; it is then bound on demand when the user asks for __annotations__.

This is an important optimization, for both speed and memory consumption. Python processes rarely examine annotations at runtime. Therefore, pre-binding these code objects to function objects would be a waste of resources in nearly all cases.

Note that user code isn't permitted to see these unbound code objects. If the user gets the value of __co_annotations__, and the internal value of __co_annotations__ is an unbound code object, it is bound, and the resulting function object is stored as the new value of __co_annotations__.

The annotations function

Annotations functions take no arguments and must return either None or a dict (or subclass of dict).

The bytecode generated for annotations code objects always uses the BUILD_CONST_KEY_MAP opcode to build the dict. Stock and PEP 563 semantics only uses this bytecode for function annotations; for class and module annotations, they generate a longer and slightly-less-efficient stanza of bytecode.

Also, when generating the bytecode for an annotations code object, all LOAD_* opcodes are forced to be LOAD_GLOBAL.

Function Annotations

When compiling a function, the CPython bytecode compiler visits the annotations for the function all in one place, starting with compiler_visit_annotations(). If there are any annotations, they create the scope for the annotations function on demand, and compiler_visit_annotations() assembles it.

The code object is passed in in place of the annotations dict for the MAKE_FUNCTION bytecode. MAKE_FUNCTION supports a new bit in its oparg bitfield, 0x10, which tells it to expect a co_annotations code object on the stack. The bitfields for annotations (0x04) and co_annotations (0x10) are mutually exclusive.

When binding an unbound annotation code object, a function will use its own __globals__ as the new function's globals.

One quirk of Python: you can't actually remove the annotations from a function object. If you delete the __annotations__ attribute of a function, then get its __annotations__ member, it will create an empty dict and use that as its __annotations__. Naturally the implementation of this PEP maintains this quirk.

Class Annotations

When compiling a class body, the compiler maintains two scopes: one for the normal class body code, and one for annotations. (This is facilitated by four new functions: compiler.c adds compiler_push_scope() and compiler_pop_scope(), and symtable.c adds symtable_push_scope() and symtable_pop_scope().) Once the code generator reaches the end of the class body, but before it generates the bytecode for the class body, it assembles the bytecode for __co_annotations__, then assigns that to __co_annotations__ using STORE_NAME.

It also sets a new __globals__ attribute. Currently it does this by calling globals() and storing the result. (Surely there's a more elegant way to find the class's globals--but this was good enough for the prototype.) When binding an unbound annotation code object, a class will use the value of this __globals__ attribute. When the class drops its reference to the unbound code object--either because it has bound it to a function, or because __annotations__ has been explicitly set--it also deletes its __globals__ attribute.

As discussed above, examination or modification of __annotations__ from within the class body is no longer supported. Also, any flow control (if or try blocks) around declarations of members with annotations is unsupported.

If you delete the __annotations__ attribute of a class, then get its __annotations__ member, it will return the annotations dict of the first base class with annotations set. If no base classes have annotations set, it will raise AttributeError.

Although it's an implementation-specific detail, currently classes store the internal value of __co_annotations__ in their tp_dict under the same name.

Module Annotations

Module annotations work much the same as class annotations. The main difference is, a module uses its own dict as the __globals__ when binding the function.

If you delete the __annotations__ attribute of a class, then get its __annotations__ member, the module will raise AttributeError.

Interactive REPL Shell

Everything works the same inside Python's interactive REPL shell, except for module annotations in the interactive module (__main__) itself. Since that module is never "finished", there's no specific point where we can compile the __co_annotations__ function.

For the sake of simplicity, in this case we forego delayed evaluation. Module-level annotations in the REPL shell will continue to work exactly as they do today, evaluating immediately and setting the result directly inside the __annotations__ dict.

(It might be possible to support delayed evaluation here. But it gets complicated quickly, and for a nearly-non-existent use case.)

Local Annotations Inside Functions

Python supports syntax for local variable annotations inside functions. However, these annotations have no runtime effect. Thus this PEP doesn't need to do anything to support them.


Performance with this PEP should be favorable. In general, resources are only consumed on demand—"you only pay for what you use".

There are three scenarios to consider:

  • the runtime cost when annotations aren't defined,
  • the runtime cost when annotations are defined but not referenced, and
  • the runtime cost when annotations are defined and referenced.

We'll examine each of these scenarios in the context of all three semantics for annotations: stock, PEP 563, and this PEP.

When there are no annotations, all three semantics have the same runtime cost: zero. No annotations dict is created and no code is generated for it. This requires no runtime processor time and consumes no memory.

When annotations are defined but not referenced, the runtime cost of Python with this PEP should be slightly faster than either original Python semantics or PEP 563 semantics. With those, the annotations dicts are built but never examined; with this PEP, the annotations dicts won't even be built. All that happens at runtime is the loading of a single constant (a simple code object) which is then set as an attribute on an object. Since the annotations are never referenced, the code object is never bound to a function, the code to create the dict is never executed, and the dict is never constructed.

When annotations are both defined and referenced, code using this PEP should be much faster than code using PEP 563 semantics, and roughly the same as original Python semantics. PEP 563 semantics requires invoking eval() for every value inside an annotations dict, which is much slower. And, as already mentioned, this PEP generates more efficient bytecode for class and module annotations than either stock or PEP 563 semantics.

Memory use should also be comparable in all three scenarios across all three semantic contexts. In the first and third scenarios, memory usage should be roughly equivalent in all cases. In the second scenario, when annotations are defined but not referenced, using this PEP's semantics will mean the function/class/module will store one unused code object; with the other two semantics, they'll store one unused dictionary.

For Future Discussion


Is it permissable to add the __globals__ reference to class objects as proposed here? It's not clear why this hasn't already been done; PEP 563 could have made use of class globals, but instead makes do with looking up classes inside sys.modules. Yet Python seems strangely allergic to adding a __globals__ reference to class objects.

If adding __globals__ to class objects is indeed a bad idea (for reasons I don't know), here are two alternatives as to how classes could get a reference to their globals for the implementation of this PEP:

  • The generate code for a class could bind its annotations code object to a function at the time the class is bound, rather than waiting for __annotations__ to be referenced, making them an exception to the rule (even though "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules"). This would result in a small additional runtime cost when annotations were defined but not referenced on class objects. Honestly I'm more worried about the lack of symmetry in semantics. (But I wouldn't want to pre-bind all annotations code objects, as that would become much more costly for function objects, even as annotations are rarely used at runtime.)
  • Use the class's __module__ attribute to look up its module by name in sys.modules. This is what PEP 563 advises. While this is passable for userspace or library code, it seems like a little bit of a code smell for this to be defined semantics baked into the language itself.

Also, the prototype gets globals for class objects by calling globals() then storing the result. I'm sure there's a much faster way to do this, I just didn't know what it was when I was prototyping. I'm sure we can revise this to something much faster and much more sanitary. I'd prefer to make it completely internal anyway, and not make it visible to the user (via this new __globals__ attribute). There's possibly already a good place to put it anyway--ht_module.

Bikeshedding the name

During most of the development of this PEP, user code actually could see the raw annotation code objects. __co_annotations__ could only be set to a code object; functions and other callables weren't permitted. In that context the name co_annotations makes a lot of sense. But with this last-minute pivot where __co_annotations__ now presents itself as a callable, perhaps the name of the attribute and the name of the from __future__ import needs a re-think.


Thanks to Barry Warsaw, Eric V. Smith, and Mark Shannon for feedback and encouragement. Thanks in particular to Mark Shannon for two key suggestions—build the entire annotations dict inside a single code object, and only bind it to a function on demand—that quickly became among the best aspects of this proposal.