Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gh-119180: Add discussion of annotations to the 3.14 What's New #124393

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 24, 2024

Conversation

JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra commented Sep 23, 2024

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot added awaiting core review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news labels Sep 23, 2024
@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024
29 tasks
Copy link
Member

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!

Comment on lines +84 to +88
annotations. Annotations may be evaluated in the :attr:`~annotationlib.Format.VALUE`
format (which evaluates annotations to runtime values, similar to the behavior in
earlier Python versions), the :attr:`~annotationlib.Format.FORWARDREF` format
(which replaces undefined names with special markers), and the
:attr:`~annotationlib.Format.SOURCE` format (which returns annotations as strings).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These will render as VALUE, FORWARDREF, SOURCE. Is that what we want, or would Format.VALUE, Format.FORWARDREF and Format.SOURCE be better?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did intend these to render as VALUE etc. Do you think adding Format is better?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I'd weakly prefer Format.VALUE, but it might make the markup quite verbose, and I don't have a strong opinion :-)

Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/whatsnew/3.14.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member

(As I mentioned offline, my high-level feedback would be that it would be nice to have some more positive content about the motivations and advantages of this change. Overall the tone is a bit gloomy currently -- but it's overall a great change, that we have lots of reasons for! :-D )

Copy link
Member

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra merged commit d56faf2 into python:main Sep 24, 2024
39 checks passed
@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra deleted the pep649-whatsnew branch September 24, 2024 05:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants