PEP Idea: Extend spec of Callable to accept unpacked TypeDicts to specify keyword-only parameters

[jamesdow21 (James Dow)]

@jpe

Has there been any discussion of using something like the following to specify callable types –

def example_func(a: int, b: int) -> bool: ...
type example_func_type = typing.Signature[example_func]

I imagine the counterargument to a proposal like that is that it’s already possible to do that with Protocol

from typing import Protocol

class ExampleFuncType(Protocol):
    def __call__(self, a: int, b: int) -> bool: ...

---

@erictraut

I think the typing community was generally very supportive of PEP 677, and many of us were disappointed when it was rejected. For reference, here are the steering council’s stated reasons for rejecting it. I would support revisiting it if there’s a chance it might be accepted.

I’m curious what you think has changed that might result in the SC coming to a different conclusion today. Do you have specific modifications in mind for the PEP that you think would help tilt the odds in favor of acceptance?

I wonder if the combination of the PEP 695 type statement and the other additions (both those already added and open proposals) in the original post here (plus the additional 3 years since the swap to the PEG parser) is enough of a change in the time since the PEP 677 rejection to “tilt the odds”