← Back to context

Comment by drcongo

19 hours ago

It's also horrible for fasle positives unless your project happens to be the exact same setup as the maintainers' - I had to turn off the actual type checking on it. I've since moved wholesale to the Ty alpha and it feels a hell of a lot smarter.

8 comments

drcongo

Reply
JimDabell  19 hours ago

It also inherits the unfortunate attitude of Pyright that it will warn against idiomatic Python (EAFP) in favour of non-idiomatic Python (LBYL):

https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/issues/1739

https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-EAFP

https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-LBYL

  • maleldil  17 hours ago

    Sometimes dynamic Python idioms are incompatible with typed Python. I personally think that's fine, since I consider static typing a significant improvement overall.

    • JimDabell  16 hours ago

      This isn’t. They actually fixed that bug. Then they changed their minds and backed the fix back out again because they don’t think you should write Python that way:

      > I think EAFP is a very unfortunate and ill-advised practice.

      They want you to not write the idiomatic Python:

          try:
        foo = bar["baz"]["qux"]
        ...
    except KeyError:
        ...

      …and instead write the non-idiomatic version:

          if "baz" in bar and "qux" in bar["baz"]:
        foo = bar["baz"]["qux"]
        ...
    else:
        ...

      If this were a linter then I would accept that it is going to be opinionated. But this is not a linter, it’s a type checker. Their opinions about EAFP are irrelevant. That’s idiomatic Python.

      3 replies →

  • kstrauser  17 hours ago

    Eww, what? I hadn’t seen that before. Yikes, I hope the situation’s improved. I’d be butting into that continually.