parameter specification/type variable tuple variance#2215
parameter specification/type variable tuple variance#2215KotlinIsland wants to merge 3 commits intopython:mainfrom
Conversation
5f8e0cc to
d9d82c9
Compare
81ba400 to
54ad5e1
Compare
JelleZijlstra
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like adding this if we can get it specified nicely, but this PR is not ready; the proposed test is incorrect.
Also, https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/generics.html#paramspec-variables still says variance on ParamSpec is unsupported; this should be updated.
I'd also like to see an implementation in at least one type checker, even if only as a draft PR, so we can be confident this is something that can be feasibly implemented.
|
I personally would also like to see tests added for param spec variance inference, since that would probably need to be supported as well. |
|
The test cases do have variance inference, though as I noted some of the cases are wrong. But it would probably be useful to have a few more cases, and I'd recommend putting the tests for paramspec variance in their own file so we can track type checker support more precisely. |
I have wip support in PyCharm, but I could also add it to basedpyright it was very straightforward to implement |
Oh right, sorry I didn't see them, because I thought they would be in a different file. I'm also very much +1 on putting those tests into a different file (for example |
8f30004 to
117964e
Compare
7a21592 to
5788125
Compare
|
support has landed in pycharm and cpython |
|
https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/generics.html#paramspec-variables stills says that we don't support variance in ParamSpec, that should be fixed in this PR. |
|
Also can you open an issue on python/typing-council asking for a formal pronouncement? |
5788125 to
f23d8ae
Compare
|
Noticed some more issues:
|
not |
f23d8ae to
414c697
Compare
414c697 to
02c4628
Compare
|
I don't think that's right. The form we want here should be a supertype of every other possible value, and something like a one-parameter callable is not a subtype of |
|
In ty we have a type that we spell as |
|
We only need assignability not subtyping here, so I think |
carljm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! Definitely support this change.
| # > TypeVarTuple does not yet support specification of variance, bounds, constraints. | ||
| # > TypeVarTuple does not yet support specification of bounds, constraints. | ||
|
|
||
| Ts1 = TypeVarTuple("Ts1", covariant=True) # E |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is is used by Array3 below, so line 107 is now failing for the wrong reason (name error) in all type checkers.
It might be better for the Array3 test to define its own TypeVarTuples right above that test, instead of relying on these TypeVarTuples doing double duty.
| arguments in the declaration just as ``typing.TypeVar`` does, but for ``bound`` we | ||
| will defer the standardization of the semantics of this option to a later PEP. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| arguments in the declaration just as ``typing.TypeVar`` does, but for ``bound`` we | |
| will defer the standardization of the semantics of this option to a later PEP. | |
| arguments in the declaration just as ``typing.TypeVar`` does. | |
| We defer the standardization of the semantics of the ``bound`` option to a later PEP. |
| ``TypeVar``/``TypeVarTuple``/``ParamSpec`` declaration and is not specified | ||
| as ``infer_variance`` (see below), its variance is specified by the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ``TypeVar``/``TypeVarTuple``/``ParamSpec`` declaration and is not specified | |
| as ``infer_variance`` (see below), its variance is specified by the | |
| ``TypeVar``/``TypeVarTuple``/``ParamSpec`` declaration and is not constructed | |
| with ``infer_variance=True`` (see below), its variance is specified by the |
|
|
||
| an ``object`` instance for a type variable. | ||
| a ``*tuple[object, ...]`` value for a type variable tuple. | ||
| a ``...`` value for a parameter specification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think using ... here is sound. Because it is both assignable-to and assignable-from any paramspec, it means that a case like the ContravariantParamSpec test will wrongly infer the paramspec as covariant (because lower is assignable to upper) before it even checks the contravariant direction.
I don't think there is any way to make the variance-inference algorithm described here correct and support inference of ParamSpec variance, without introducing the new concept of a "top signature".
(I'm also not sure how much value there is in including this particular variance-inference algorithm in the spec. I think it describes pyright's algorithm. I know that ty and pyrefly do not use this algorithm. I don't know about mypy or zuban.)
| @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ | |||
| """ | |||
| Tests variance of ParamSpec. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should also have tests for invariant paramspecs (would have to be used more than once in the class)
| @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | |||
| """ | |||
| Tests variance of TypeVarTuple. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here too, I think we should have tests for invariant TypeVarTuple.
But we also need assignability to fail in the "wrong" direction, and this workaround fails that requirement. |
discussion: https://discuss.python.org/t/parameter-specifications-should-have-variance/106452
typing.TypeVarTuplecpython#148212typing.TypeVarTuple: add bound/variance properties from 3.15 typeshed#15670