@@ -689,11 +689,6 @@ qualifier. ``staticmethod`` and ``classmethod`` will return
689689``staticmethod `` and ``classmethod `` types, which are subscriptable as
690690of 3.14.
691691
692- TODO: What do we do about decorators in general, *at runtime *... This
693- seems pretty cursed. We can probably sometimes evaluate them, if there
694- are annotations at runtime, but in general that would require full
695- subtype checking, which we can't do.
696-
697692We also have helpers for extracting the fields of ``Members ``; they
698693are all definable in terms of ``GetArg ``. (Some of them are shared
699694with ``Param ``, discussed below.)
@@ -705,15 +700,15 @@ with ``Param``, discussed below.)
705700* ``GetDefiner[T: Member] ``
706701
707702All of the operators in this section are :ref: `lifted over union types
708- <lifting>`. (BUT TODO: should they be?)
703+ <lifting>`.
709704
710705Object creation
711706'''''''''''''''
712707
713708* ``NewProtocol[*Ms: Member] ``: Create a new structural protocol with members
714709 specified by ``Member `` arguments
715710
716- * ``NewProtocolWithBases[Bases, Ps : tuple[Member] ] `` - A variant that
711+ * ``NewProtocolWithBases[Bases: tuple[type], *Ms: Member ] `` - A variant that
717712 allows specifying bases too. TODO: Is this something we actually want?
718713
719714* ``NewTypedDict[*Ps: Member] `` - Creates a new ``TypedDict `` with
@@ -865,7 +860,7 @@ Raise error
865860Update class
866861''''''''''''
867862
868- TODO : This is kind of sketchy but it is I think needed for defining
863+ N.B : This is kind of sketchy but it is I think needed for defining
869864base classes and type decorators that do ``dataclass `` like things.
870865
871866* ``UpdateClass[*Ps: Member] ``: A special form that *updates * an
@@ -942,7 +937,12 @@ those cases, we add a new hook to ``typing``:
942937 If set to ``None `` (the default), the boolean operators will return
943938 ``False `` while ``Iter `` will evaluate to
944939 ``iter(typing.TypeVarTuple("_IterDummy")) ``.
945- (TODO: Or should it be to ``iter([]) ``?)
940+
941+
942+ There has been some discussion of adding a ``Format.AST `` mode for
943+ fetching annotations. That would combine extremely well with this
944+ proposal, as it would make it easy to still fetch fully unevaluated
945+ annotations.
946946
947947Examples / Tutorial
948948===================
0 commit comments