# Static type annotations in CPython

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/static-type-annotations-in-cpython/65068>\
**Category:** Core Development\
**Created:** [September 25, 2024, 8:55pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/static-type-annotations-in-cpython/65068 "2024-09-25T20:55:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![timhoffm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/timhoffm/32/19468_2.png) [@timhoffm](https://discuss.python.org/u/timhoffm)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 3:15pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/static-type-annotations-in-cpython/65068/23 "2025-04-14T15:15:06Z")

</div>

Semi-OT (since the topic of runtime type information is used to argue against [PEP 781: Make `TYPE_CHECKING` a built-in constant - PEPs - Discussions on Python.org](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-781-make-type-checking-a-built-in-constant/85728)):

Is it correct to state that runtime type information will always be significantly incomplete as long as there are no static type annotations in CPython (because type stubs are not evaluated at runtime)? If so does a decision not to add static type annotations to the standard libary imply that runtime type information is not a priority?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/static-type-annotations-in-cpython/65068)._