Short subsection on annotating coroutines - #225

From this example alone it's hard to see how [int, float, str] map to the various aspects of generators. Personally I use the fact that they were introduced historically at different times: yielded value (int), value returned by yield expression (float), value returned by return statement (str). But for others that may not be a great help...

I agree, I added the type parameters in a new commit.

Whoa, I think this needs -> None otherwise the body won't be type-checked (despite the presence of type comments).

In the initial version I had this -> None, but then removed to simplify the example. If I understand correctly this sentence in the PEP "Any function without annotations should be treated as having the most general type possible, or ignored, by any type checker", then it is up to type-checker whether to type check the body of foo here. I do not have any preference here, if you think it is better to add -> None, then should I make another PR (this one is already merged), of you will add it?

I just updated the PEP. I think it's better to add, because the only known
example of a type checker does indeed ignore the body of unannotated
functions, so it's better to show examples that are fully annotated (except
when talking about annotated vs. unannotated).

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi [email protected]
wrote:

In pep-0484.txt
#225 (comment):

+return_type]provided bytyping.py`` module::
+

• def echo_round() -> Generator[int, float, str]:

•  res = yield
  

•  while res:
  

•      res = yield round(res)
  

•  return 'OK'
  

  +Coroutines introduced in PEP 492 are annotated with the same syntax as
  +ordinary functions. However, the return type annotation corresponds to the
  +type of await expression, not to the coroutine type::
  +
• async def spam(ignored: int) -> str:

•  return 'spam'
  
• async def foo():

In the initial version I had this -> None, but then removed to simplify
the example. If I understand correctly this sentence in the PEP "Any
function without annotations should be treated as having the most general
type possible, or ignored, by any type checker", then it is up to
type-checker whether to type check the body of foo here. I do not have
any preference here, if you think it is better to add -> None, then
should I make another PR (this one is already merged), of you will add it?

—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/python/typing/pull/225/files/30ec2751a96be037a02879b6c551b7a00d05a596#r64702492

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)