Ken Jin <kenjin4...@gmail.com> added the comment:
I think I saw a similar bug report elsewhere (or maybe I'm misremembering). Anyways, Eric is right, the correct way is to wrap the entire thing, so "Foo|int" instead of "Foo"|int. @Alex you brought up some good suggestions, I'll try to address them: > Arguably, either the implementation should be altered to support forward > references Unfortunately that's more complex than it seems. The original draft PEP 604 proposed implementation actually imported Union from typing.py, and I recall Guido disliking the idea that a builtin type should depend on typing.py. I have to agree with that philosophy here. I also don't think the alternative -- implementing a builtin ForwardRef type isn't worth the complexity unless our situation changes. > the documentation at > https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#union-type should be altered > to make clear that ... The first line says: "A union object holds the value of the | (bitwise or) operation on multiple type objects." It says *type objects*, which strings don't belong to. @TNThung does Eric's suggestion work for you? Or do you need something else? ---------- status: open -> pending _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45857> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
