Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

PEP 709 follow-up #189

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

Closed
carljm opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

PEP 709 follow-up #189

carljm opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@carljm
Copy link
Member

carljm commented May 13, 2023

Hello!

We need a steering council / 3.12 release manager ruling on how to handle a case where PEP 709 can change name resolution for a comprehension in a class scope, which was only identified after the PEP was accepted. See https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-709-one-behavior-change-that-was-missed-in-the-pep/26691/1 for a full discussion of the behavior change and an analysis of the real-world impact on several codebases I've tested (I wrote an AST scanning tool and have yet to find real-world code that would be impacted), as well as an outline of the possible paths forward for 3.12 and beyond.

Thanks, and sorry for not identifying this behavior change while writing the PEP!

@Yhg1s
Copy link
Member

Yhg1s commented May 15, 2023

I've posted a longer update on the Discourse thread (https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-709-one-behavior-change-that-was-missed-in-the-pep/26691/21), but in short the SC decided the newly uncovered semantics change is too problematic, and we have to unaccept the PEP and roll back the implementation change. (Sorry.)

@Yhg1s Yhg1s closed this as completed May 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants