Issue39019
Created on 2019-12-10 17:55 by BTaskaya, last changed 2020-04-07 20:55 by BTaskaya. This issue is now closed.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 17558 | merged | BTaskaya, 2019-12-10 18:06 | |
| PR 17560 | merged | BTaskaya, 2019-12-10 18:12 | |
| PR 17561 | closed | BTaskaya, 2019-12-10 18:24 | |
| PR 17563 | closed | BTaskaya, 2019-12-10 18:28 | |
| Messages (8) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg358209 - (view) | Author: Batuhan Taskaya (BTaskaya) * | Date: 2019-12-10 17:55 | |
After working on issue 38994 and issue 38978, I decided to write a simple AST analyzer to find class getitem syntax usage in typeshed. It discovered a few classes (I am not sure if there are more). As @brett.cannon suggested in PR 17498 I'll prepare individual pull requests. typeshed/stdlib/3/subprocess.pyi:868 => Popen typeshed/stdlib/3/subprocess.pyi:82 => CompletedProcess typeshed/stdlib/3/tempfile.pyi:98 => SpooledTemporaryFile typeshed/stdlib/3/os/__init__.pyi:463 => DirEntry typeshed/stdlib/3/http/cookies.pyi:5 => Morsel |
|||
| msg359043 - (view) | Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * | Date: 2019-12-30 16:02 | |
New changeset 4dc5a9df59837446ec1dc5b7a0e6ce95ae5b5cec by Ivan Levkivskyi (Batuhan Taşkaya) in branch 'master': bpo-39019: Implement missing __class_getitem__ for subprocess classes (GH-17558) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/4dc5a9df59837446ec1dc5b7a0e6ce95ae5b5cec |
|||
| msg359044 - (view) | Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * | Date: 2019-12-30 16:08 | |
New changeset 09c482fad11c769be38b2449f1056e264b701bb7 by Ivan Levkivskyi (Batuhan Taşkaya) in branch 'master': bpo-39019: Implement missing __class_getitem__ for SpooledTemporaryFile (GH-17560) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/09c482fad11c769be38b2449f1056e264b701bb7 |
|||
| msg362530 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2020-02-23 17:56 | |
Once PEP 585 is implemented these should be rolled back and replaced with that, right? |
|||
| msg362533 - (view) | Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * | Date: 2020-02-23 18:32 | |
> Once PEP 585 is implemented these should be rolled back and replaced with that, right? I would say that ideally yes. |
|||
| msg365937 - (view) | Author: Batuhan Taskaya (BTaskaya) * | Date: 2020-04-07 20:36 | |
PEP 585 is landed, closing the issue (and linked PRs) |
|||
| msg365941 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2020-04-07 20:53 | |
Hold on, os.DirEntry[str] still doesn't work. |
|||
| msg365942 - (view) | Author: Batuhan Taskaya (BTaskaya) * | Date: 2020-04-07 20:55 | |
> Hold on, os.DirEntry[str] still doesn't work. That is what I asked on the issue 39481. I couldn't find anything about its cover on PEP 585. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2020-04-07 20:55:44 | BTaskaya | set | messages: + msg365942 |
| 2020-04-07 20:53:15 | gvanrossum | set | messages: + msg365941 |
| 2020-04-07 20:37:14 | BTaskaya | set | status: open -> closed stage: patch review -> resolved |
| 2020-04-07 20:36:51 | BTaskaya | set | messages: + msg365937 |
| 2020-02-23 22:37:39 | serhiy.storchaka | set | pull_requests: - pull_request17994 |
| 2020-02-23 22:13:32 | serhiy.storchaka | set | nosy:
+ serhiy.storchaka pull_requests: + pull_request17994 |
| 2020-02-23 18:32:09 | levkivskyi | set | messages: + msg362533 |
| 2020-02-23 17:56:37 | gvanrossum | set | nosy:
+ gvanrossum messages: + msg362530 |
| 2019-12-30 16:08:15 | levkivskyi | set | messages: + msg359044 |
| 2019-12-30 16:02:20 | levkivskyi | set | messages: + msg359043 |
| 2019-12-10 18:28:53 | BTaskaya | set | pull_requests: + pull_request17035 |
| 2019-12-10 18:24:25 | BTaskaya | set | pull_requests: + pull_request17033 |
| 2019-12-10 18:12:28 | BTaskaya | set | pull_requests: + pull_request17032 |
| 2019-12-10 18:06:57 | BTaskaya | set | keywords:
+ patch stage: patch review pull_requests: + pull_request17030 |
| 2019-12-10 18:00:10 | BTaskaya | set | nosy:
+ levkivskyi components:
+ Library (Lib) |
| 2019-12-10 17:55:54 | BTaskaya | create | |