# PEP 764: Inlined typed dictionaries

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-764-inlined-typed-dictionaries/78779>\
**Category:** PEPs\
**Tags:** typing\
**Created:** [January 29, 2025, 9:10pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-764-inlined-typed-dictionaries/78779 "2025-01-29T21:10:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 97

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Viicos](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/viicos/32/14616_2.png) [@Viicos](https://discuss.python.org/u/Viicos)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2026, 9:48am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-764-inlined-typed-dictionaries/78779/97 "2026-03-05T09:48:19Z")

</div>

Sorry for letting this one stale, I am (maybe overly) cautious about what I think would be the right way forward, and wasn’t too satisfied with this approach. That’s why I played with an alternative idea ([Inlined typed dicts and typed dict comprehensions - #12 by Viicos](https://discuss.python.org/t/68921/12) / [PEP 9999 – Inline type expressions and inline typed dictionaries | peps.python.org](https://viicos-peps--1.org.readthedocs.build/en/1/pep-9999/)), and together with [Idea: Simpler and More Expressive Type Annotations](https://discuss.python.org/t/idea-/104730) / [PEP 827: Type Manipulation](https://discuss.python.org/t/106353) it might make this PEP obsolete.

But I do acknowledge the demand for this one, and maybe it isn’t that much of an issue to have this syntax and potentially a more idiomatic one in the future?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-764-inlined-typed-dictionaries/78779)._