# Use \* operator to type fixed-size collections

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/use-operator-to-type-fixed-size-collections/38508>\
**Category:** Ideas\
**Tags:** typing\
**Created:** [November 12, 2023, 2:01pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/use-operator-to-type-fixed-size-collections/38508 "2023-11-12T14:01:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![loic-simon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/loic-simon/32/37461_2.png) [@loic-simon](https://discuss.python.org/u/loic-simon)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2023, 7:31pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/use-operator-to-type-fixed-size-collections/38508/8 "2023-11-13T19:31:36Z")

</div>

> [@flyinghyrax](#):
>
> However I’d personally prefer no more “special cases” be added until more rigorous foundations are specified for the type system in general.

Yeah, I totally understand that! That’s more or less the reason why I didn’t push my proposal about [extracting kwargs from function signatures](https://discuss.python.org/t/extract-kwargs-types-from-a-function-signature/34238) further. Hope this project and related debates will progress quickly and lead so exciting features!

Do you think special-casing `tuple[SomeType, Literal[int]]` could still be relevant? Or even `tuple[SomeType, TypeVar(bound=Literal[int])]`, which is AFAIK not doable today!

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/use-operator-to-type-fixed-size-collections/38508)._