Skip to content

Type parameters: Incorrect text in SyntaxError for disallowed expression #119933

Description

@JelleZijlstra

Bug report

Bug description:

We disallow certain expressions (e.g., yield) in type parameters bounds, constraints, and defaults. But the error message always says it's a bound:

>>> def f[T=(yield)](): pass
  File "<python-input-0>", line 1
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within a TypeVar bound
>>> def f[T: (int, (yield))](): pass
  File "<python-input-2>", line 1
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within a TypeVar bound

We could either add some machinery in the symbol table so it knows whether we're in a bound, constraints, or default, or just change the error message to something like "within a TypeVar bound, constraints, or default".

CPython versions tested on:

CPython main branch

Operating systems tested on:

No response

Linked PRs

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Jun 2, 2024
  2. picnixz commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @picnixz
    Member

    I know that you self-assigned that task, but can I perhaps help for this one if you are not in a hurry for the latter? I'd be interested in knowing how to make it work.

  3. JelleZijlstra commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @JelleZijlstra
    MemberAuthor

    Sure, this issue would be a good way to get some familiarity with the symtable code. I partly self-assigned this because the solution is likely to create some conflicts with #119361, and I want to get that landed first :). But the conflict is likely manageable, so feel free to get started now.

    The solution is going to look a little different on 3.12 (which has only TypeVar bounds and constraints), 3.13 (which adds TypeVar/ParamSpec/TypeVarTuple defaults), and 3.14 (which will implement PEP 649, using annotation scopes in more contexts).

    I think there's two approaches we can take to solving the issue:

    • Give a more generic error, maybe just "yield expression cannot be used here". That's easier to implement since we don't have to keep track of exactly what flavor of annotation scope we're in, but the error becomes more generic.
    • Make the errors more specific. When I implemented PEP 695, I attempted to do this by adding to the _Py_block_ty enum. However, now that we have type parameter defaults too, we'd have to add another three entries to that enum, which feels bad for maintenance. Maybe alternatively, we could add a new string field to the PySTEntryObject struct to hold a string representing the kind of scope we're in. Then we can just pass that string when entering the block and unify a couple of the entries in the _Py_block_ty enum.
  4. picnixz commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @picnixz
    Member

    I actually just implemented something along the lines for 3.14:

    • Add an extra integer field to _symtable_entry objects of the following type:
    /* Additional flags that are set temporarily on a symtable object.
     *
     * Those flags are only used to add some information on the current context.
     */
    typedef enum _extra_flags {
        // Mutually exclusive flags indicating which component of
        // a type parameters block (PEP 695) is being processed.
        InTypeVarBound = 1,
        InTypeVarConstraint = 2,
        InTypeVarDefault = 4,
    } _Py_extra_fls;

    Here, it's only used for adding some extra information for the "component" being processed in a type parameter block, but it can be used for other kind of blocks in the future. I also tried a first implementation where you add more block types but it became a bit messy...

    By the way, since I didn't see anything for distinguishing between bounds and constraints, I assumed that a tuple expression is always considered a constraints but if this is not the case (namely, you could have cases where the expression's kind is Tuple_kind but we are actually dealing with a bound, then please let me know how I can distinguish and test those cases).

    I'm sending the PR in a few moments (I'll just skip the news and changes for now, since this is something I can do later).

  5. JelleZijlstra commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @JelleZijlstra
    MemberAuthor

    InTypeVarDefault

    This isn't enough, because ParamSpec and TypeVarTuple can also have defaults.

    I assumed that a tuple expression is always considered a constraints

    That is correct; it's constraints if the top level is a Tuple and a bound otherwise.

  6. picnixz commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @picnixz
  7. picnixz commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @picnixz
    Member

    Actually, what kind of error should I use for a TypeVarTuple and ParamSpec? should I also change the "in a TypeVar default" into "in a TypeVarTuple/ParamSpec default"? (same question for class definitions and so on).

  8. JelleZijlstra commented on Jun 3, 2024

    @JelleZijlstra
    MemberAuthor

    Yes, I think it should say e.g. "yield expression cannot be used in a ParamSpec default".

  9. added 3 commits that reference this issue on Jun 17, 2024
  10. JelleZijlstra commented on Jun 17, 2024

    @JelleZijlstra
    MemberAuthor

    Fixed in 3.13 and 3.14. There is still a bug in 3.12 where it says "bound" for constraints, but I'm OK with that.

  11. added a commit that references this issue on Jun 30, 2024
  12. added a commit that references this issue on Jul 11, 2024
  13. added a commit that references this issue on Jul 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

3.12only security fixes3.13only security fixes3.14bugs and security fixesinterpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)topic-typingtype-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions