gh-119180: Updates to PEP 649/749 docs #134640
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Mention (again) that `type.__annotations__` is unsafe. It is now safe when using only classes defined under PEP 649 semantics, but not with classes defined using `from __future__ import annotations`. - Mention that annotations on instances no longer work. There was already an issue about this. - Mention the general changes in the "Porting to Python 3.14" section. - `annotationlib` was proposed by PEP-749, not PEP-649.
30 tasks
emmatyping
approved these changes
May 26, 2025
Co-authored-by: Emma Smith <[email protected]>
willingc
approved these changes
May 26, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @JelleZijlstra. I made a small suggestion for readability.
Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <[email protected]>
|
Thanks @JelleZijlstra for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2025
- Mention (again) that `type.__annotations__` is unsafe. It is now safe when using only classes defined under PEP 649 semantics, but not with classes defined using `from __future__ import annotations`. - Mention that annotations on instances no longer work. There was already an issue about this. - Mention the general changes in the "Porting to Python 3.14" section. - `annotationlib` was proposed by PEP-749, not PEP-649. (cherry picked from commit 7291eab) Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Emma Smith <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <[email protected]>
|
GH-134731 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
JelleZijlstra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2025
gh-119180: Updates to PEP 649/749 docs (GH-134640) - Mention (again) that `type.__annotations__` is unsafe. It is now safe when using only classes defined under PEP 649 semantics, but not with classes defined using `from __future__ import annotations`. - Mention that annotations on instances no longer work. There was already an issue about this. - Mention the general changes in the "Porting to Python 3.14" section. - `annotationlib` was proposed by PEP-749, not PEP-649. (cherry picked from commit 7291eab) Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Emma Smith <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
type.__annotations__is unsafe. It is now safewhen using only classes defined under PEP 649 semantics, but not with
classes defined using
from __future__ import annotations.an issue about this.
annotationlibwas proposed by PEP-749, not PEP-649.📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--134640.org.readthedocs.build/