zlacker

>>welder+(OP)
I really like the overall design and ethos, but a new project without typehints, pydoc, and at least some tests just isn't the kind of thing I'd bring into my stack. Hope it gets a little bit of polish!

>>hannib+5g
It does have some typehints... but I don't like Python types when they require importing the object only for the purpose of types. I only import objects when they're actually used in the non-type code, and I don't like to use `if typing.TYPE_CHECKING`.

These days I use Go when I need types.

>>welder+fi
Why is this a problem? When would you reference the type but not actually need the type? If you're returning the type from some method in your API, but not instantiating it there?

>>ttymck+9r
Yes, if you're accepting the type as a param or returning the type. It happens very frequently, and without moving those imports behind "if typing.TYPE_CHECKING", you constantly run into cyclic imports.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39740632/python-type-hin...

>>welder+1N
It happens very frequently if you are not very good at separating your data model from logic.

>>heaven+DA1
Why would there exist a way in Python to conditionally import types, for the purpose of preventing cyclic imports, if cyclic imports weren't a problem?

Your comment makes it seem like you haven't experienced Python types enough, or you wouldn't think it was so easy.

>>welder+vH1
> Your comment makes it seem like you haven't experienced Python types enough, or you wouldn't think it was so easy.

Oh trust me I did and I constantly slap on the wrists juniors who over-complicate their solutions to the problem :)

> Why would there exist a way in Python to conditionally import types, for the purpose of preventing cyclic imports, if cyclic imports weren't a problem?

Because it's easier to understand than the solution to cyclic imports without conditional imports.