Pep 0604: Remove __revert__ operator (#1183)

* Add PEP-0604 to describes an extension to Python language, which aims to add a complementary
syntax to write ``Union[X,Y]`` and ``Optional[X]`` easier.

* Add sample with metaclass with __invert__ and/or __or__

* Remove operator __revert__

pep-0604.rst

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Introduction
 ============
 
 This PEP describes an extension to Python language, which aims to add a complementary
-syntax to write ``Union[X,Y]`` and ``Optional[X]`` easier.
+syntax to write ``Union[X,Y]`` easier.
 
 
 Motivation
@@ -33,45 +33,14 @@ MyPy [4]_ accepts a syntax which looks like something like this:
 
 - To describe a disjunction, the user must use ``Union[X,Y]``.
 
-- To describe an optional value, the user must use ``Optional[X]``.
-
 The verbosity of this syntax does not help the adoption.
 
 Proposal
 ========
 
-Inspired by Scala language [5]_, this proposal adds two operators in the root ``type``:
-
-Strong proposition
-------------------
-Add operator ``__or__()`` in the root ``type``.
-
+Inspired by Scala language [5]_, this proposal adds operator ``__or__()`` in the root ``type``.
 With this new operator, it is possible to write ``int | str`` in place of ``Union[int,str]``.
-
 This proposition uses the standard meaning of the ``|`` operator.
-
-Optional proposition 1
-----------------------
-Add operator ``__invert__()`` in the root ``type``.
-
-With this new operator, it is possible to write ``~int`` in place of ``Optional[int]``.
-
-This proposition uses this operator because it is present in the language and it's conform to the
-`usage of tilde <https://www.thecut.com/article/why-the-internet-tilde-is-our-most-perfect-tool-for-snark.html>`_
-
-So, the new syntax for annotations will be:
-
-::
-
-    annotation: ( name_type | or_type | invert_type )
-    or_type: name_type '|' annotation
-    invert_type: '~' annotation
-    name_type: NAME (args)?
-    args: '[' paramslist ']'
-    paramslist: annotation (',' annotation)* [',']
-
-Optional proposition 2
-----------------------
 Then, it is possible to extend ``isinstance()`` and ``issubclass()``
 to accept this new syntax:
 
@@ -88,14 +57,13 @@ Here are some examples of what we can do with this feature.
 
     # in place of
     # def f(list: List[Union[int, str]], param: Optional[int]) -> Union[float, str]
-    def f(list: List[int | str], param: ~int) -> float | str:
+    def f(list: List[int | str], param: int | None) -> float | str:
         pass
 
     f([1,"abc"],None)
 
     assert str | int == Union[str,int]
     assert str | int | float == Union[str, int, float]
-    assert ~str == Optional[str]
 
     assert isinstance("", int | str)
     assert issubclass(int, int | str)
@@ -106,11 +74,26 @@ Incompatible changes
 ====================
 In some situations, some exceptions will not be raised as expected.
 
+If some metaclass overload the ``__or__`` operator, the user must resolve the ambiguities with ``Union``.
+::
+
+    >>> class M(type):
+    ... 	def __or__(self,other): return "Hello"
+    ...
+    >>> class C(metaclass=M):pass
+    ...
+    >>> C | int
+    'Hello'
+    >>> int | C
+    typing.Union[int, __main__.C]
+    >>> Union[C,int]
+    typing.Union[__main__.C, int]
 
 Dissenting Opinion
 ==================
 
 - `Discussion in python-ideas <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/FCTXGDT2NNKRJQ6CDEPWUXHVG2AAQZZY/>`_
+- `Discussion in typing-sig <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/D5HCB4NT4S3WSK33WI26WZSFEXCEMNHN/>`_
 
 1. Add a new operator for ``Union[type1|type2]``?
 --------------------------------------------------
@@ -206,69 +189,7 @@ Use ``{int, str}`` in place of ``Union[int,str]`` ?
 - PRO: big advantage of ``{int, str}`` over ``int|str``. It doesn't require adding anything to ``type``,
   and we don't need to introduce a new lightweight builtin union type.
 
-2. Add a new operator for ``Optional[type]`` ?
-----------------------------------------------
-
-- CONS: ``foo | None`` is short and readable
-- CONS: ``foo | None`` it's 3 fewer characters than ``Optional[foo]``, or 30 fewer if you include the full
-  removal of ``from typing import Optional``. the additional gain of ``~foo`` is only 6 characters.
-- PRO: help the readability, with a lot of parameters:
-
-::
-
-    def f(source: str | None, destination: str | None, param: int | None):...
-    def f(source: ~str, destination: ~str, param: ~int):...
-
-- PRO: I'm currently working on annotating a very large codebase, and ``Optional[T]`` is so frequent that I
-  think ``T | None`` would not be enough of an improvement.
-- PRO: Adding a default ``__or__`` overload to ``type`` seems a reasonable price to pay in 3.9, and
-  ditto for ``__invert__``. Type checkers can support this in older Python versions using PEP 563 or in type
-  comments or in "forward references" (types hidden in string literals).
-- CONS: The ``~`` is easy to be missed (at least by human readers) and the meaning not obvious.
-- PRO: Also, Python's typing system is a lot easier to grasp if you're familiar with an established modern-typed
-  language (Swift, Scala, Haskell, F#, etc.), and they also use ``Optional[T]`` (or ``optional<T>`` or ``Maybe t``
-  or some other spelling of the same idea) all over be place—so often that many of them have added shortcuts
-  like ``T?`` to make it easier to write and less intrusive to read.
-
-- if yes,
-
-Add operator ``__revert__`` in type type to use syntax like ``~int`` ?
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- CONS: ``~`` is not automatically readable
-
-  - *like ``:`` to separate variable and typing.*
-
-- CONS: ``~`` means complement, which is a completely different thing from ``|None``. ``~int`` seems like it
-  would actually harm comprehension instead of helping.
-- PRO: the slight abuse of ``~int`` meaning "maybe int" is pretty plausible (consider how "approximately equal"
-  is written mathematically).
-- PRO: `Possibly relevant for tilde <https://www.thecut.com/article/why-the-internet-tilde-is-our-most-perfect-tool-for-snark.html>`_
-- CONS: With ``~`` there probably won't be a confusion in that sense, but someone reading it for the first time will
-  definitely need to look it up (which is fine i.m.o.).
-
-  - *Like the first time someone reading the annotation*
-
-::
-
-    def f(a=int):...
-    def f(a:int):...
-
-Add operator ``__add__`` in type type to use syntax like ``+int`` ?
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- PRO: ``+foo`` definitely seems to say "foo, plus something else" to me much more than ``~foo``.
-- CONS: ``+foo`` is less intuitive than ``~foo`` for ``Optional``
-
-Like Kotlin, add a new ``?`` operator to use syntax like ``int?`` or ``?int`` ?
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
-- CONS: It's not compatible with IPython and Jupyter Lab ``?smth`` displays help for symbol ``smth``
-- CONS: With default arguments, ``?=`` looks... not great
-
-::
-
-    def f(source: str?=def_src, destination: str?=MISSING, param: int?=1): ...
-
-3. Extend ``isinstance()`` and ``issubclass()`` to accept ``Union`` ?
+2. Extend ``isinstance()`` and ``issubclass()`` to accept ``Union`` ?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 ::
@@ -277,13 +198,12 @@ Like Kotlin, add a new ``?`` operator to use syntax like ``int?`` or ``?int`` ?
 
 - PRO: if they were permitted, then instance checks could use an extremely clean-looking notation for "any of these":
 - PRO: The implementation can use the tuple present in ``Union`` parameter, without create a new instance.
-- CONS: Why not accept this syntax in ``except`` ?
 
 Reference Implementation
 ========================
 
 A proposed implementation for `cpython is here
-<https://github.com/pprados/cpython/tree/updage_isinstance>`_.
+<https://github.com/pprados/cpython/tree/update_isinstance>`_.
 A proposed implementation for `mypy is here
 <https://github.com/pprados/mypy/tree/add_INVERT_to_types>`_.