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

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-idea-extend-spec-of-callable-to-accept-unpacked-typedicts-to-specify-keyword-only-parameters/96975>\
**Category:** Typing\
**Tags:** typing, pep, typing-spec\
**Created:** [June 28, 2025, 11:59am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-idea-extend-spec-of-callable-to-accept-unpacked-typedicts-to-specify-keyword-only-parameters/96975 "2025-06-28T11:59:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jamesdow21](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/jamesdow21/32/34808_2.png) [@jamesdow21](https://discuss.python.org/u/jamesdow21)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2025, 7:34pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-idea-extend-spec-of-callable-to-accept-unpacked-typedicts-to-specify-keyword-only-parameters/96975/15 "2025-06-29T19:34:38Z")

</div>

> [@jpe](#):
>
> Has there been any discussion of using something like the following to specify callable types –
> 
> ```python
> 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`

```python
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](https://groups.google.com/g/dev-python/c/pjqkxdhp2vs?pli=1) 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”

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-idea-extend-spec-of-callable-to-accept-unpacked-typedicts-to-specify-keyword-only-parameters/96975)._