Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> added the comment:
Hm, reading the thread it's not 100% clear to me what you are proposing to do in your patch, since different people seem to have proposed different things. I think I'd be okay if `foo[bar]: baz` and `foo.bar: baz` (etc.) didn't generate any bytecode at all. Is that what you're proposing here? If so, and assuming the code is reasonably straightforward, I'd say go ahead and make a PR (and close the old OR). In case it's relevant, I don't peronally expect Larry's clever alternative to PEP 563 to make it past the SC, and I don't care much about it (too many tricky edge cases), but it's out of my control, so don't count on that being dead just yet. And FWIW changing how annotations are represented in the AST is out of scope for this issue. (There are tricky edge cases there too.) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42737> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
