Make (Async)GeneratorType type parameters consistent with (Async)Generator type parameters
#14789
+10
−6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… parameters Currently `Generator` is generic over three type variables that have defaults, but `GeneratorType` is generic over three type variables that do not have defaults. It seems like it probably makes more sense for them to be consistent? The vast majority of real-world `Generator`s are instances of `GeneratorType`
AlexWaygood
changed the title
GeneratorType type parameters consistent with Generator type parameters(Async)GeneratorType type parameters consistent with Generator type parameters
|
According to mypy_primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉 |
AlexWaygood
changed the title
(Async)GeneratorType type parameters consistent with Generator type parameters(Async)GeneratorType type parameters consistent with (Async)Generator type parameters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently
typing.Generator(a protocol) is generic over three type variables that have defaults, buttypes.GeneratorType(a concrete class) is generic over three type variables that do not have defaults. It seems like it probably makes more sense for them to be consistent? The vast majority of real-worldGenerators are instances ofGeneratorType