678 lines
20 KiB
ReStructuredText
678 lines
20 KiB
ReStructuredText
PEP: 655
|
||
Title: Marking individual TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing
|
||
Author: David Foster <david at dafoster.net>
|
||
Sponsor: Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>
|
||
Discussions-To: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/53XVOD5ZUKJ263MWA6AUPEA6J7LBBLNV/
|
||
Status: Final
|
||
Type: Standards Track
|
||
Topic: Typing
|
||
Created: 30-Jan-2021
|
||
Python-Version: 3.11
|
||
Post-History: 31-Jan-2021, 11-Feb-2021, 20-Feb-2021, 26-Feb-2021, 17-Jan-2022, 28-Jan-2022
|
||
Resolution: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/AJEDNVC3FXM5QXNNW5CR4UCT4KI5XVUE/
|
||
|
||
.. canonical-typing-spec:: :ref:`typing:required-notrequired`,
|
||
:py:data:`typing.Required` and
|
||
:py:data:`typing.NotRequired`
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
========
|
||
|
||
:pep:`589` defines notation
|
||
for declaring a TypedDict with all required keys and notation for defining
|
||
a TypedDict with :pep:`all potentially-missing keys <589#totality>`, however it
|
||
does not provide a mechanism to declare some keys as required and others
|
||
as potentially-missing. This PEP introduces two new notations:
|
||
``Required[]``, which can be used on individual items of a
|
||
TypedDict to mark them as required, and
|
||
``NotRequired[]``, which can be used on individual items
|
||
to mark them as potentially-missing.
|
||
|
||
This PEP makes no Python grammar changes. Correct usage
|
||
of required and potentially-missing keys of TypedDicts is intended to be
|
||
enforced only by static type checkers and need not be enforced by
|
||
Python itself at runtime.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
It is not uncommon to want to define a TypedDict with some keys that are
|
||
required and others that are potentially-missing. Currently the only way
|
||
to define such a TypedDict is to declare one TypedDict with one value
|
||
for ``total`` and then inherit it from another TypedDict with a
|
||
different value for ``total``:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class _MovieBase(TypedDict): # implicitly total=True
|
||
title: str
|
||
|
||
class Movie(_MovieBase, total=False):
|
||
year: int
|
||
|
||
Having to declare two different TypedDict types for this purpose is
|
||
cumbersome.
|
||
|
||
This PEP introduces two new type qualifiers, ``typing.Required`` and
|
||
``typing.NotRequired``, which allow defining a *single* TypedDict with
|
||
a mix of both required and potentially-missing keys:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
This PEP also makes it possible to define TypedDicts in the
|
||
:pep:`alternative functional syntax <589#alternative-syntax>`
|
||
with a mix of required and potentially-missing keys,
|
||
which is not currently possible at all because the alternative syntax does
|
||
not support inheritance:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
Actor = TypedDict('Actor', {
|
||
'name': str,
|
||
# "in" is a keyword, so the functional syntax is necessary
|
||
'in': NotRequired[List[str]],
|
||
})
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
One might think it unusual to propose notation that prioritizes marking
|
||
*required* keys rather than *potentially-missing* keys, as is
|
||
customary in other languages like TypeScript:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: typescript
|
||
|
||
interface Movie {
|
||
title: string;
|
||
year?: number; // ? marks potentially-missing keys
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
The difficulty is that the best word for marking a potentially-missing
|
||
key, ``Optional[]``, is already used in Python for a completely
|
||
different purpose: marking values that could be either of a particular
|
||
type or ``None``. In particular the following does not work:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
...
|
||
year: Optional[int] # means int|None, not potentially-missing!
|
||
|
||
Attempting to use any synonym of “optional” to mark potentially-missing
|
||
keys (like ``Missing[]``) would be too similar to ``Optional[]``
|
||
and be easy to confuse with it.
|
||
|
||
Thus it was decided to focus on positive-form phrasing for required keys
|
||
instead, which is straightforward to spell as ``Required[]``.
|
||
|
||
Nevertheless it is common for folks wanting to extend a regular
|
||
(``total=True``) TypedDict to only want to add a small number of
|
||
potentially-missing keys, which necessitates a way to mark keys that are
|
||
*not* required and potentially-missing, and so we also allow the
|
||
``NotRequired[]`` form for that case.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specification
|
||
=============
|
||
|
||
The ``typing.Required`` type qualifier is used to indicate that a
|
||
variable declared in a TypedDict definition is a required key:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict, total=False):
|
||
title: Required[str]
|
||
year: int
|
||
|
||
Additionally the ``typing.NotRequired`` type qualifier is used to
|
||
indicate that a variable declared in a TypedDict definition is a
|
||
potentially-missing key:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict): # implicitly total=True
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
It is an error to use ``Required[]`` or ``NotRequired[]`` in any
|
||
location that is not an item of a TypedDict.
|
||
Type checkers must enforce this restriction.
|
||
|
||
It is valid to use ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` even for
|
||
items where it is redundant, to enable additional explicitness if desired:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: Required[str] # redundant
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
It is an error to use both ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` at the
|
||
same time:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[Required[int]] # ERROR
|
||
|
||
Type checkers must enforce this restriction.
|
||
The runtime implementations of ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``
|
||
may also enforce this restriction.
|
||
|
||
The :pep:`alternative functional syntax <589#alternative-syntax>`
|
||
for TypedDict also supports
|
||
``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
Movie = TypedDict('Movie', {'name': str, 'year': NotRequired[int]})
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interaction with ``total=False``
|
||
--------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Any :pep:`589`-style TypedDict declared with ``total=False`` is equivalent
|
||
to a TypedDict with an implicit ``total=True`` definition with all of its
|
||
keys marked as ``NotRequired[]``.
|
||
|
||
Therefore:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class _MovieBase(TypedDict): # implicitly total=True
|
||
title: str
|
||
|
||
class Movie(_MovieBase, total=False):
|
||
year: int
|
||
|
||
|
||
is equivalent to:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class _MovieBase(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
|
||
class Movie(_MovieBase):
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interaction with ``Annotated[]``
|
||
-----------------------------------
|
||
|
||
``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` can be used with ``Annotated[]``,
|
||
in any nesting order:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[Annotated[int, ValueRange(-9999, 9999)]] # ok
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: Annotated[NotRequired[int], ValueRange(-9999, 9999)] # ok
|
||
|
||
In particular allowing ``Annotated[]`` to be the outermost annotation
|
||
for an item allows better interoperability with non-typing uses of
|
||
annotations, which may always want ``Annotated[]`` as the outermost annotation.
|
||
[3]_
|
||
|
||
|
||
Runtime behavior
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interaction with ``get_type_hints()``
|
||
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
``typing.get_type_hints(...)`` applied to a TypedDict will by default
|
||
strip out any ``Required[]`` or ``NotRequired[]`` type qualifiers,
|
||
since these qualifiers are expected to be inconvenient for code
|
||
casually introspecting type annotations.
|
||
|
||
``typing.get_type_hints(..., include_extras=True)`` however
|
||
*will* retain ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]`` type qualifiers,
|
||
for advanced code introspecting type annotations that
|
||
wishes to preserve *all* annotations in the original source:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
assert get_type_hints(Movie) == \
|
||
{'title': str, 'year': int}
|
||
assert get_type_hints(Movie, include_extras=True) == \
|
||
{'title': str, 'year': NotRequired[int]}
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interaction with ``get_origin()`` and ``get_args()``
|
||
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
``typing.get_origin()`` and ``typing.get_args()`` will be updated to
|
||
recognize ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
assert get_origin(Required[int]) is Required
|
||
assert get_args(Required[int]) == (int,)
|
||
|
||
assert get_origin(NotRequired[int]) is NotRequired
|
||
assert get_args(NotRequired[int]) == (int,)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interaction with ``__required_keys__`` and ``__optional_keys__``
|
||
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
An item marked with ``Required[]`` will always appear
|
||
in the ``__required_keys__`` for its enclosing TypedDict. Similarly an item
|
||
marked with ``NotRequired[]`` will always appear in ``__optional_keys__``.
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
assert Movie.__required_keys__ == frozenset({'title'})
|
||
assert Movie.__optional_keys__ == frozenset({'year'})
|
||
|
||
|
||
Backwards Compatibility
|
||
=======================
|
||
|
||
No backward incompatible changes are made by this PEP.
|
||
|
||
|
||
How to Teach This
|
||
=================
|
||
|
||
To define a TypedDict where most keys are required and some are
|
||
potentially-missing, define a single TypedDict as normal
|
||
(without the ``total`` keyword)
|
||
and mark those few keys that are potentially-missing with ``NotRequired[]``.
|
||
|
||
To define a TypedDict where most keys are potentially-missing and a few are
|
||
required, define a ``total=False`` TypedDict
|
||
and mark those few keys that are required with ``Required[]``.
|
||
|
||
If some items accept ``None`` in addition to a regular value, it is
|
||
recommended that the ``TYPE|None`` notation be preferred over
|
||
``Optional[TYPE]`` for marking such item values, to avoid using
|
||
``Required[]`` or ``NotRequired[]`` alongside ``Optional[]``
|
||
within the same TypedDict definition:
|
||
|
||
Yes:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: good
|
||
|
||
from __future__ import annotations # for Python 3.7-3.9
|
||
|
||
class Dog(TypedDict):
|
||
name: str
|
||
owner: NotRequired[str|None]
|
||
|
||
Okay (required for Python 3.5.3-3.6):
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: maybe
|
||
|
||
class Dog(TypedDict):
|
||
name: str
|
||
owner: 'NotRequired[str|None]'
|
||
|
||
No:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: bad
|
||
|
||
class Dog(TypedDict):
|
||
name: str
|
||
# ick; avoid using both Optional and NotRequired
|
||
owner: NotRequired[Optional[str]]
|
||
|
||
Usage in Python <3.11
|
||
---------------------
|
||
|
||
If your code supports Python <3.11 and wishes to use ``Required[]`` or
|
||
``NotRequired[]`` then it should use ``typing_extensions.TypedDict`` rather
|
||
than ``typing.TypedDict`` because the latter will not understand
|
||
``(Not)Required[]``. In particular ``__required_keys__`` and
|
||
``__optional_keys__`` on the resulting TypedDict type will not be correct:
|
||
|
||
Yes (Python 3.11+ only):
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: good
|
||
|
||
from typing import NotRequired, TypedDict
|
||
|
||
class Dog(TypedDict):
|
||
name: str
|
||
owner: NotRequired[str|None]
|
||
|
||
Yes (Python <3.11 and 3.11+):
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: good
|
||
|
||
from __future__ import annotations # for Python 3.7-3.9
|
||
|
||
from typing_extensions import NotRequired, TypedDict # for Python <3.11 with (Not)Required
|
||
|
||
class Dog(TypedDict):
|
||
name: str
|
||
owner: NotRequired[str|None]
|
||
|
||
No (Python <3.11 and 3.11+):
|
||
|
||
.. code-block::
|
||
:class: bad
|
||
|
||
from typing import TypedDict # oops: should import from typing_extensions instead
|
||
from typing_extensions import NotRequired
|
||
|
||
class Movie(TypedDict):
|
||
title: str
|
||
year: NotRequired[int]
|
||
|
||
assert Movie.__required_keys__ == frozenset({'title', 'year'}) # yikes
|
||
assert Movie.__optional_keys__ == frozenset() # yikes
|
||
|
||
|
||
Reference Implementation
|
||
========================
|
||
|
||
The `mypy <http://www.mypy-lang.org/>`__
|
||
`0.930 <https://mypy-lang.blogspot.com/2021/12/mypy-0930-released.html>`__,
|
||
`pyright <https://github.com/Microsoft/pyright>`__
|
||
`1.1.117 <https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/commit/7ed245b1845173090c6404e49912e8cbfb3417c8>`__,
|
||
and `pyanalyze <https://github.com/quora/pyanalyze>`__
|
||
`0.4.0 <https://pyanalyze.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changelog.html#version-0-4-0-november-18-2021>`__
|
||
type checkers support ``Required`` and ``NotRequired``.
|
||
|
||
A reference implementation of the runtime component is provided in the
|
||
`typing_extensions <https://github.com/python/typing/tree/master/typing_extensions>`__
|
||
module.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rejected Ideas
|
||
==============
|
||
|
||
Special syntax around the *key* of a TypedDict item
|
||
---------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict):
|
||
opt1?: str # may not exist, but if exists, value is string
|
||
opt2: Optional[str] # always exists, but may have None value
|
||
|
||
This notation would require Python grammar changes and it is not
|
||
believed that marking TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing
|
||
would meet the high bar required to make such grammar changes.
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict):
|
||
Optional[opt1]: str # may not exist, but if exists, value is string
|
||
opt2: Optional[str] # always exists, but may have None value
|
||
|
||
This notation causes ``Optional[]`` to take on different meanings depending
|
||
on where it is positioned, which is inconsistent and confusing.
|
||
|
||
Also, “let’s just not put funny syntax before the colon.” [1]_
|
||
|
||
|
||
Marking required or potentially-missing keys with an operator
|
||
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
We could use unary ``+`` as shorthand to mark a required key, unary
|
||
``-`` to mark a potentially-missing key, or unary ``~`` to mark a key
|
||
with opposite-of-normal totality:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict, total=False):
|
||
req1: +int # + means a required key, or Required[]
|
||
opt1: str
|
||
req2: +float
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict):
|
||
req1: int
|
||
opt1: -str # - means a potentially-missing key, or NotRequired[]
|
||
req2: float
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict):
|
||
req1: int
|
||
opt1: ~str # ~ means a opposite-of-normal-totality key
|
||
req2: float
|
||
|
||
Such operators could be implemented on ``type`` via the ``__pos__``,
|
||
``__neg__`` and ``__invert__`` special methods without modifying the
|
||
grammar.
|
||
|
||
It was decided that it would be prudent to introduce long-form notation
|
||
(i.e. ``Required[]`` and ``NotRequired[]``) before introducing
|
||
any short-form notation. Future PEPs may reconsider introducing this
|
||
or other short-form notation options.
|
||
|
||
Note when reconsidering introducing this short-form notation that
|
||
``+``, ``-``, and ``~`` already have existing meanings in the Python
|
||
typing world: covariant, contravariant, and invariant:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
>>> from typing import TypeVar
|
||
>>> (TypeVar('T', covariant=True), TypeVar('U', contravariant=True), TypeVar('V'))
|
||
(+T, -U, ~V)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Marking absence of a value with a special constant
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
We could introduce a new type-level constant which signals the absence
|
||
of a value when used as a union member, similar to JavaScript’s
|
||
``undefined`` type, perhaps called ``Missing``:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict):
|
||
req1: int
|
||
opt1: str|Missing
|
||
req2: float
|
||
|
||
Such a ``Missing`` constant could also be used for other scenarios such
|
||
as the type of a variable which is only conditionally defined:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyClass:
|
||
attr: int|Missing
|
||
|
||
def __init__(self, set_attr: bool) -> None:
|
||
if set_attr:
|
||
self.attr = 10
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
def foo(set_attr: bool) -> None:
|
||
if set_attr:
|
||
attr = 10
|
||
reveal_type(attr) # int|Missing
|
||
|
||
Misalignment with how unions apply to values
|
||
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
However this use of ``...|Missing``, equivalent to
|
||
``Union[..., Missing]``, doesn’t align well with what a union normally
|
||
means: ``Union[...]`` always describes the type of a *value* that is
|
||
present. By contrast missingness or non-totality is a property of a
|
||
*variable* instead. Current precedent for marking properties of a
|
||
variable include ``Final[...]`` and ``ClassVar[...]``, which the
|
||
proposal for ``Required[...]`` is aligned with.
|
||
|
||
Misalignment with how unions are subdivided
|
||
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
Furthermore the use of ``Union[..., Missing]`` doesn’t align with the
|
||
usual ways that union values are broken down: Normally you can eliminate
|
||
components of a union type using ``isinstance`` checks:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Packet:
|
||
data: Union[str, bytes]
|
||
|
||
def send_data(packet: Packet) -> None:
|
||
if isinstance(packet.data, str):
|
||
reveal_type(packet.data) # str
|
||
packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8')
|
||
else:
|
||
reveal_type(packet.data) # bytes
|
||
packet_bytes = packet.data
|
||
socket.send(packet_bytes)
|
||
|
||
However if we were to allow ``Union[..., Missing]`` you’d either have to
|
||
eliminate the ``Missing`` case with ``hasattr`` for object attributes:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class Packet:
|
||
data: Union[str, Missing]
|
||
|
||
def send_data(packet: Packet) -> None:
|
||
if hasattr(packet, 'data'):
|
||
reveal_type(packet.data) # str
|
||
packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8')
|
||
else:
|
||
reveal_type(packet.data) # Missing? error?
|
||
packet_bytes = b''
|
||
socket.send(packet_bytes)
|
||
|
||
or a check against ``locals()`` for local variables:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
def send_data(packet_data: Optional[str]) -> None:
|
||
packet_bytes: Union[str, Missing]
|
||
if packet_data is not None:
|
||
packet_bytes = packet.data.encode('utf-8')
|
||
|
||
if 'packet_bytes' in locals():
|
||
reveal_type(packet_bytes) # bytes
|
||
socket.send(packet_bytes)
|
||
else:
|
||
reveal_type(packet_bytes) # Missing? error?
|
||
|
||
or a check via other means, such as against ``globals()`` for global
|
||
variables:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
warning: Union[str, Missing]
|
||
import sys
|
||
if sys.version_info < (3, 6):
|
||
warning = 'Your version of Python is unsupported!'
|
||
|
||
if 'warning' in globals():
|
||
reveal_type(warning) # str
|
||
print(warning)
|
||
else:
|
||
reveal_type(warning) # Missing? error?
|
||
|
||
Weird and inconsistent. ``Missing`` is not really a value at all; it’s
|
||
an absence of definition and such an absence should be treated
|
||
specially.
|
||
|
||
Difficult to implement
|
||
''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
Eric Traut from the Pyright type checker team has stated that
|
||
implementing a ``Union[..., Missing]``-style notation would be
|
||
difficult. [2]_
|
||
|
||
Introduces a second null-like value into Python
|
||
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|
||
|
||
Defining a new ``Missing`` type-level constant would be very close to
|
||
introducing a new ``Missing`` value-level constant at runtime, creating
|
||
a second null-like runtime value in addition to ``None``. Having two
|
||
different null-like constants in Python (``None`` and ``Missing``) would
|
||
be confusing. Many newcomers to JavaScript already have difficulty
|
||
distinguishing between its analogous constants ``null`` and
|
||
``undefined``.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Replace Optional with Nullable. Repurpose Optional to mean “optional item”.
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
``Optional[]`` is too ubiquitous to deprecate, although use of it
|
||
*may* fade over time in favor of the ``T|None`` notation specified by :pep:`604`.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Change Optional to mean “optional item” in certain contexts instead of “nullable”
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Consider the use of a special flag on a TypedDict definition to alter
|
||
the interpretation of ``Optional`` inside the TypedDict to mean
|
||
“optional item” rather than its usual meaning of “nullable”:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict, optional_as_missing=True):
|
||
req1: int
|
||
opt1: Optional[str]
|
||
|
||
or:
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
class MyThing(TypedDict, optional_as_nullable=False):
|
||
req1: int
|
||
opt1: Optional[str]
|
||
|
||
This would add more confusion for users because it would mean that in
|
||
*some* contexts the meaning of ``Optional[]`` is different than in
|
||
other contexts, and it would be easy to overlook the flag.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Various synonyms for “potentially-missing item”
|
||
-----------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
- Omittable – too easy to confuse with optional
|
||
- OptionalItem, OptionalKey – two words; too easy to confuse with
|
||
optional
|
||
- MayExist, MissingOk – two words
|
||
- Droppable – too similar to Rust’s ``Drop``, which means something
|
||
different
|
||
- Potential – too vague
|
||
- Open – sounds like applies to an entire structure rather then to an
|
||
item
|
||
- Excludable
|
||
- Checked
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
.. [1] https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/message/4I3GPIWDUKV6GUCHDMORGUGRE4F4SXGR/
|
||
|
||
.. [2] https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/message/S2VJSVG6WCIWPBZ54BOJPG56KXVSLZK6/
|
||
|
||
.. [3] https://bugs.python.org/issue46491
|
||
|
||
Copyright
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
This document is placed in the public domain or under the
|
||
CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.
|