-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.8k
gh-107155: Fix help(lambda_func)
when lambda_func
has `__annotati…
#107401
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
…notations__` with `return` key.
Thanks for your help @AA-Turner ! Is there anything else that needs to be done? Also, I think this kind of PR doesn't need a |
Here's how to think about whether a bugfix PR deserves a news entry: does the PR fix a bug that users have noticed? If so, users deserve to know about it being fixed, so it should have a news entry. If not, the PR should be closed, as users won't notice the change being made, which makes the PR have very limited value. In this case, a user reported the bug on the GitHub issue tracker, so at least one user will notice the change. As such, it definitely deserves a news entry :) |
I'd agree with Alex, this is visible to end-users (although very rare!). Something that outlines that A |
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2023-08-02-01-17-32.gh-issue-107155.Mj1K9L.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
After your words, I agree that this PR needs a I wrote some lines, please, check it. |
…j1K9L.rst Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
A
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2023-08-02-01-17-32.gh-issue-107155.Mj1K9L.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Now I'm have resolved the merge conflict. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not like modification of the original object. It is not thread-safe. It does not work if __annotations__
is read-only. It does not restore {'return': None}
.
Maybe just keep the parentheses if the lambda object has annotations? In any case this is not a valid Python syntax.
All of your points makes sense to me, thanks for them! I've made changes, please take a look at them :)
Is it okay or we should change it? |
lambda with annotations can't be expressed in Python syntax anyway. At least it now has balanced parentheses and does not truncate words. |
Thanks @Eclips4 for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11, 3.12. |
Sorry, @Eclips4 and @serhiy-storchaka, I could not cleanly backport this to
|
Sorry, @Eclips4 and @serhiy-storchaka, I could not cleanly backport this to
|
GH-115612 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
…notation (pythonGH-107401) (cherry picked from commit b9a9e3d) Co-authored-by: Kirill Podoprigora <kirill.bast9@mail.ru>
GH-115613 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
...ons__`
I cannot find any example with parenthesis in signature of lambda 😄 .
help()
output oflambda
with manually set__annotations__
is one char off #107155