Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> added the comment:
> If o.__annotations__ is None, should this function set the empty dict on the > object? That seems slightly too opinionated to me. On the other hand, the > user would probably expect that they could change the dict they got back. Are you saying the user would expect to be able to change __annotations__ my modifying the dict they get back? Is it ever the case that the user can modify __annotations__ through the dict that's returned? That is: does __annotations__ itself ever get returned? I think you'd either want __annotations__ returned all the time, or never returned. Otherwise some cases could modify __annotations__, and some couldn't. If __annotations__ is never returned, then I wouldn't set __annotations__ in this case. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43817> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
