gh-119180: Add discussion of annotations to the 3.14 What's New - #124393
gh-119180: Add discussion of annotations to the 3.14 What's New#124393JelleZijlstra merged 5 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
AlexWaygood
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice!
Sorry, something went wrong.
| 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). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These will render as VALUE, FORWARDREF, SOURCE. Is that what we want, or would Format.VALUE, Format.FORWARDREF and Format.SOURCE be better?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did intend these to render as VALUE etc. Do you think adding Format is better?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I'd weakly prefer Format.VALUE, but it might make the markup quite verbose, and I don't have a strong opinion :-)
Sorry, something went wrong.
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 ) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
AlexWaygood
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks!
Sorry, something went wrong.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--124393.org.readthedocs.build/