-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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
Replace TypeGuard with TypeIs #194
Merged
francium
merged 3 commits into
rustedpy:main
from
kreathon:replace-typeguard-with-typeis
Aug 18, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Would you kindly revisit this README and update any other references to is_ok/is_err/isinstance so they're update to date and accurate with the changes being made here.
There's a bug/workaround mentioned in the FAQ section near the bottom, would you be able to while you're here verify it that needs any updating with the changes you've made here.
Finally, I think it may still be good to mention
isinstance
can be used, in the README, but is_ok/is_err may work better now(?)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.
So currently there are three options:
After this change "Option 2 A" is no longer required and we get a simplified "Option 2":
From a type inference / narrowing perspective "Option 1" and "Option 2" should be interchangeably (
TypeIs
is basically implemented with theisinstance
code).So the question is if "Option 1" or "Option 2" should be recommended / prefered? Or should the docs recommend neither of them?
For me personally I see:
is_ok()
is shorter and more readableisinstance
does not rely on another import (but maybeOk
orErr
do need to be imported additionally)What do you think? @francium
What do others think?
This should not be related to the changes I made.
I will do (after the discussion about
isinstance
vs.is_ok
.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 would think mentioning Option 1, but suggesting/hinting you can achieve more readable code using Option 2, may be a good approach? I'll leave it up to you, but I think at least briefly mentioning Option 1 is beneficial for discoverability.