gh-119180: Add discussion of annotations to the 3.14 What's New by JelleZijlstra · Pull Request #124393 · python/cpython
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). |
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?
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?
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 :-)
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
(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 )
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!