PEP 698: Include discussion of pinning the ancestor class #2893
Conversation
This idea came up in the PEP discussion: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-698-a-typing-override-decorator/20839/4 We decided against it, but as promised I am including the idea and potential upside as well as our rationale for not including it in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. Checked code with ``` pre-commit run --files pep-0698.rst ```
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Just FYI, you can also run |
|
|
||
| - Supporting this would add complexity to the implementation of both | ||
| ``@override`` and type checker support for it, so there would need to | ||
| be considerable value add. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be "added value"? I'm not sure I've ever heard "value add" in this way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a bit business jargony, means the same as "added value".
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value-add
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/03/01/do-you-speak-corporate-business-jargon-for-humans/
"Added value" may be clearer, or even "benefits".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I usually hear it with an indefinite article, i.e. "a considerable value add". From an editing perspective, if a change is going to be made, I agree with Hugo that it would be much clearer (especially to a wide, international audience) to just say "benefits".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, this wasn't great wording and "benefits" would be clearer. I can put that change up
5 participants
This idea came up in the PEP discussion:
https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-698-a-typing-override-decorator/20839/4
We decided against including this, but as promised I am including the idea and potential upside as well as our rationale for not including it in the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
Checked code with